通过保险安全干预拨款计划审查紧急医疗服务的动力,安全的病人处理设备。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-15 DOI:10.1017/S1049023X25000196
Marie A Hayden, Audrey A Reichard, Brian D Lowe, Steven J Naber, Steven J Wurzelbacher
{"title":"通过保险安全干预拨款计划审查紧急医疗服务的动力,安全的病人处理设备。","authors":"Marie A Hayden, Audrey A Reichard, Brian D Lowe, Steven J Naber, Steven J Wurzelbacher","doi":"10.1017/S1049023X25000196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Powered equipment for patient handling was designed to alleviate Emergency Medical Service (EMS) clinician injuries while lifting patients. This project evaluated the organizational rationale for purchasing powered equipment and the outcomes from equipment use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This project analyzed secondary data obtained via an insurance Safety Intervention Grant (SIG) program in Ohio USA. These data were primarily in reports from EMS organizations. Investigators applied a mixed-methods approach, analyzing quantitative data from 297 grants and qualitative data from a sample of 64 grants. Analysts abstracted data related to: work-related injuries or risk of musculoskeletal-disorders (MSD), employee feedback regarding acceptance or rejection, and impact on quality, productivity, staffing, and cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of $16.67 million (2018 adjusted USD) was spent from 2005 through 2018 for powered cots, powered loading systems, powered stair chairs, and non-patient handling equipment (eg, chest compression system, powered roller). Organizations purchased equipment to accommodate staff demographics (height, age, sex) and patient characteristics (weight, impairments). Grantees were fire departments (<i>n</i> = 254) and public (<i>n</i> = 19) and private (<i>n</i> = 24) EMS organizations consisting of career (45%), volunteer (20%), and a combination of career and volunteer (35%) staff. Powered equipment reduced reported musculoskeletal injuries, and organizations reported it improved EMS clinicians' safety. Organization feedback was mostly positive, and no organization indicated outright rejection of the purchased equipment. Analyst-identified design advantages for powered cots included increased patient weight capacity and hydraulic features, but the greater weight of the powered cot was a disadvantage. The locking mechanism to hold the cot during transportation was reported as an advantage, but it was a disadvantage for older cots without a compatibility conversion kit. Around one-half of organizations described a positive impact on quality of care and patient safety resulting from the new equipment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, organizations reported improved EMS clinicians' safety but noted that not all safety concerns were addressed by the new equipment.</p>","PeriodicalId":20400,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine","volume":"40 2","pages":"64-72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107376/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of Powered, Safe Patient-Handling Equipment for Emergency Medical Services via an Insurance Safety Intervention Grant Program.\",\"authors\":\"Marie A Hayden, Audrey A Reichard, Brian D Lowe, Steven J Naber, Steven J Wurzelbacher\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1049023X25000196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Powered equipment for patient handling was designed to alleviate Emergency Medical Service (EMS) clinician injuries while lifting patients. This project evaluated the organizational rationale for purchasing powered equipment and the outcomes from equipment use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This project analyzed secondary data obtained via an insurance Safety Intervention Grant (SIG) program in Ohio USA. These data were primarily in reports from EMS organizations. Investigators applied a mixed-methods approach, analyzing quantitative data from 297 grants and qualitative data from a sample of 64 grants. Analysts abstracted data related to: work-related injuries or risk of musculoskeletal-disorders (MSD), employee feedback regarding acceptance or rejection, and impact on quality, productivity, staffing, and cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of $16.67 million (2018 adjusted USD) was spent from 2005 through 2018 for powered cots, powered loading systems, powered stair chairs, and non-patient handling equipment (eg, chest compression system, powered roller). Organizations purchased equipment to accommodate staff demographics (height, age, sex) and patient characteristics (weight, impairments). Grantees were fire departments (<i>n</i> = 254) and public (<i>n</i> = 19) and private (<i>n</i> = 24) EMS organizations consisting of career (45%), volunteer (20%), and a combination of career and volunteer (35%) staff. Powered equipment reduced reported musculoskeletal injuries, and organizations reported it improved EMS clinicians' safety. Organization feedback was mostly positive, and no organization indicated outright rejection of the purchased equipment. Analyst-identified design advantages for powered cots included increased patient weight capacity and hydraulic features, but the greater weight of the powered cot was a disadvantage. The locking mechanism to hold the cot during transportation was reported as an advantage, but it was a disadvantage for older cots without a compatibility conversion kit. Around one-half of organizations described a positive impact on quality of care and patient safety resulting from the new equipment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, organizations reported improved EMS clinicians' safety but noted that not all safety concerns were addressed by the new equipment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine\",\"volume\":\"40 2\",\"pages\":\"64-72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107376/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X25000196\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital and Disaster Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X25000196","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为减轻急诊医疗服务(EMS)临床医生在搬运病人时的伤害而设计的病人搬运动力设备。本项目评估了采购动力设备的组织原理和设备使用的结果。方法:本项目分析了通过美国俄亥俄州保险安全干预资助(SIG)项目获得的二手数据。这些数据主要来自EMS组织的报告。研究人员采用混合方法,分析了来自297项资助的定量数据和来自64项资助样本的定性数据。分析人员将相关数据抽象为:工伤或肌肉骨骼疾病(MSD)风险,员工对接受或拒绝的反馈,以及对质量、生产力、人员配备和成本的影响。结果:从2005年到2018年,总共花费了1667万美元(2018年调整美元)用于电动帆布床、电动装载系统、电动楼梯椅和非患者搬运设备(如胸部按压系统、电动滚筒)。各组织购买设备以适应工作人员的人口统计(身高、年龄、性别)和病人的特征(体重、残疾)。受资助者是消防部门(n = 254),公共(n = 19)和私人(n = 24) EMS组织,由职业(45%)、志愿者(20%)和职业和志愿者(35%)员工组成。动力设备减少了报告的肌肉骨骼损伤,组织报告说它提高了EMS临床医生的安全性。组织的反馈大多是积极的,没有组织表示完全拒绝购买的设备。分析人员认为,动力床的设计优势包括增加病人的重量容量和液压特性,但动力床的重量较大是一个缺点。据报道,在运输过程中,锁定机制保持cot是一个优势,但对于没有兼容性转换套件的旧cots来说,这是一个劣势。大约一半的组织描述了新设备对护理质量和患者安全产生的积极影响。结论:总体而言,组织报告了EMS临床医生安全性的提高,但注意到并非所有的安全问题都得到了新设备的解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Review of Powered, Safe Patient-Handling Equipment for Emergency Medical Services via an Insurance Safety Intervention Grant Program.

Background: Powered equipment for patient handling was designed to alleviate Emergency Medical Service (EMS) clinician injuries while lifting patients. This project evaluated the organizational rationale for purchasing powered equipment and the outcomes from equipment use.

Methods: This project analyzed secondary data obtained via an insurance Safety Intervention Grant (SIG) program in Ohio USA. These data were primarily in reports from EMS organizations. Investigators applied a mixed-methods approach, analyzing quantitative data from 297 grants and qualitative data from a sample of 64 grants. Analysts abstracted data related to: work-related injuries or risk of musculoskeletal-disorders (MSD), employee feedback regarding acceptance or rejection, and impact on quality, productivity, staffing, and cost.

Results: A total of $16.67 million (2018 adjusted USD) was spent from 2005 through 2018 for powered cots, powered loading systems, powered stair chairs, and non-patient handling equipment (eg, chest compression system, powered roller). Organizations purchased equipment to accommodate staff demographics (height, age, sex) and patient characteristics (weight, impairments). Grantees were fire departments (n = 254) and public (n = 19) and private (n = 24) EMS organizations consisting of career (45%), volunteer (20%), and a combination of career and volunteer (35%) staff. Powered equipment reduced reported musculoskeletal injuries, and organizations reported it improved EMS clinicians' safety. Organization feedback was mostly positive, and no organization indicated outright rejection of the purchased equipment. Analyst-identified design advantages for powered cots included increased patient weight capacity and hydraulic features, but the greater weight of the powered cot was a disadvantage. The locking mechanism to hold the cot during transportation was reported as an advantage, but it was a disadvantage for older cots without a compatibility conversion kit. Around one-half of organizations described a positive impact on quality of care and patient safety resulting from the new equipment.

Conclusion: Overall, organizations reported improved EMS clinicians' safety but noted that not all safety concerns were addressed by the new equipment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
13.60%
发文量
279
期刊介绍: Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (PDM) is an official publication of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine. Currently in its 25th volume, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine is one of the leading scientific journals focusing on prehospital and disaster health. It is the only peer-reviewed international journal in its field, published bi-monthly, providing a readable, usable worldwide source of research and analysis. PDM is currently distributed in more than 55 countries. Its readership includes physicians, professors, EMTs and paramedics, nurses, emergency managers, disaster planners, hospital administrators, sociologists, and psychologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信