Ranking Stretcher and Backboard Related Paramedic Lifting Tasks Based on Their Biomechanical Demand on the Low Back

A mixed methods approach to describe the efficacy of lift assist device use to reduce low back musculoskeletal disorder risk factors during three common patient extrication scenarios

This mixed-method study evaluated the efficacy of lift assist device use (Binder®, Eagle®, Maxi Air®) relative to manual lifting/care-as-usual in reducing low back muscle activity and perceived exertion during simulated patient extrication tasks. User feedback was recorded to identify factors that might influence use. Twenty paramedics performed a floor to stretcher lift, lateral transfer, and confined space extrication care-as-usual and with lift assist devices. Use of a lift assist reduced low back muscle activity during floor to stretcher and confined space tasks by 34-47%. Paramedics perceived exertion decreased from 'somewhat hard' to 'light' or 'very light' when using an assistive device. Paramedics noted that ease of use, patient comfort, task time, patient acuity, among other considerations would influence use decisions. Lift assist devices were efficacious at reducing low back muscle activity and perceived exertion during floor to stretcher and patient extrication tasks.

Quantifying how functional and structural personal factors influence biomechanical exposures in paramedic lifting tasks

It is unknown how structural (sex, stature, body mass) and functional (strength, flexibility) personal factors influence lifting strategy in paramedic work. We explored whether variance in peak low back forces and kinematic coordination patterns could be explained by structural and functional personal factors in paramedic lifting tasks. Seventy-two participants performed backboard and stretcher lifts. Peak low back forces normalised to body mass, as well as kinematic coordination patterns, were calculated as dependent variables. Being female, stronger, shorter, having higher body mass, and/or having greater lower body range of motion (ROM) were all independently associated with lower normalised low back forces across backboard and stretcher lifting. Females and stronger individuals seemed to define a movement objective to consistently minimise compressive forces, while individuals with greater hip ROM consistently minimised anteroposterior shear forces. The efficacy of improving strength and hip ROM to reduce low back forces in paramedic lifting should be investigated.Practitioner summary: Females, stronger individuals, and individuals with greater hip range of motion consistently exhibited lower normalised low back forces in paramedic lifting. Improving strength and hip range of motion via training is a potential proactive ergonomics approach to reduce peak low back forces in paramedic lifting tasks.

Factors influencing the likelihood of females passing the Ottawa paramedic physical ability test

The Ottawa Paramedic Physical Ability Test (OPPAT) was launched in Ontario as a physical employment standard for front-line paramedics. When considering pass rates based on sex, males had a higher likelihood of passing than females. To help understand how to improve pass rates among females we aimed to understand if factors such as participant demographics, college type, employment status and/or peak heart rate (a surrogate of fitness level) were related to OPPAT pass rates. Females who were employed, who were educated in a public paramedic college, and who had higher body mass were more likely to successfully complete the OPPAT. Those educated in a public paramedic college were more than twice as likely to pass relative to those educated in a private college program. This may underscore a need to further explore different modes of paramedic education to understand why public college program trained students are more likely to pass.

The Influence of Contextual and Theoretical Expertise on Generic and Occupation-Specific Lifting Strategy

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether (i) low back loads and/or (ii) kinematic coordination patterns differed across theoretical expert, contextual expert and novice groups when completing both generic and occupation-specific lifts.

BACKGROUND

Experience has been proposed as a factor that could reduce biomechanical exposures in lifting, but the literature reports mixed effects. The inconsistent relationship between experience and exposures may be partially attributable to the broad classification of experience and experimental lifting protocols not replicating the environment where experience was gained.

METHODS

Purposive sampling was used to recruit 72 participants including theoretical experts (formal training on lifting mechanics), contextual experts (paramedics), and novices. Participants performed 10 barbell and crate (generic) lifts, as well as backboard and stretcher (occupation-specific) lifts while whole-body kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected. Peak low back compression and anteroposterior shear loads normalized to body mass, as well as kinematic coordination patterns, were calculated as dependent variables.

RESULTS

No significant differences in low back loads were observed across expertise groups. However, significant differences were seen in kinematic coordination patterns across expertise groups in occupation-specific lifts, but not in generic lifts.

CONCLUSION

Increasing expertise is unlikely to minimize low back loads in lifting. However, contextual expertise did influence lifting kinematics, but only when performing occupationally specific lifts.

APPLICATION

Contextual expertise may help lifters adopt lifting kinematics that enhance the tolerance of their musculoskeletal system to withstand applied loads, but does not seem to reduce the applied low back loads relative to noncontextual expert groups.

The influence of sex and strength capacity on normalized low-back exposure during lifting: Insights from a joint power analysis

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the influence of sex, strength capacity, and relative load mass on low-back exposure and lower extremity joint power generation in backboard lifting.

BACKGROUND

Sex and strength have been shown to influence lifting strategy, but without load mass being scaled to strength it is unknown which factor influences low-back exposures, and whether there are interactions with load mass.

METHODS

Motion capture and force plate data from 28 participants were collected during backboard lifting at load masses scaled to strength capacity. Differences in normalized peak low-back moment, peak knee-to-hip power magnitude ratio and timing were tested as a function of sex, strength, and load mass.

RESULTS

Stronger participants had lower normalized peak low-back moments (average 32% change from low-capacity across all load masses), with no significant sex effect (p = 0.582). As load mass increased, normalized peak low-back moment, peak knee-to-hip power magnitude and synchronicity decreased.

CONCLUSION

Training to both increase strength capacity and hip-joint power generation may be a strategy to reduce low-back exposure in backboard lifting.

Wrapping technique and wrapping height interact to modify physical exposures during manual pallet wrapping

Occupational tasks often involve musculoskeletal demands that contribute to injury risk. In pallet wrapping tasks, 36% of workplace claims involve over exertion and repetitive exposures (Workplace Safety and Prevention Services, 2012). Tools that modify how the wrap is handled by workers have been introduced to help mitigate over exertion and extreme postures wherever possible. A novel device has been introduced that places the required tension on the roll to mitigate these factors. However, the effect of reducing the necessary tension on the roll during pallet wrapping in limiting muscular demand and extreme postures is unknown. Fourteen healthy university aged participants completed 12 wrapping trials on a simulated pallet (2 repetitions of 2 wrapping techniques (device, hand wrapping) at 3 wrapping heights (low, medium, high)). Surface electromyography (sEMG) was measured on 6 shoulder and 2 low back muscles; anterior and middle deltoids, biceps brachii, infraspinatus, supraspinatus, upper trapezius, and erector spinae (T8 & L3). Kinematic data were collected for the torso and upper extremity and global to torso, and torso to upper arm angles were computed. Repeated measures ANOVAs were performed for the following experimental factors: 1) technique used (device or hand wrapping) and 2) the wrapping height (low, medium, high) for each muscle (8), angle (5), rating of perceived discomfort (1) and rating of perceived exertion (1). Pallet wrapping without a device required greater trunk flexion at lower heights and thoracohumeral elevation at higher wrapping heights as compared to using the device. Muscular activation increased when using the device, specifically at the higher and lower heights. Posture and muscular demands during pallet wrapping tasks are sensitive to both wrapping technique and wrapping height. Ergonomics interventions such as this device may mitigate postural risks associated with manual material handling tasks.