| |
Abstract |
This observational study analyses the responses of 38 nurses from two similar units that use different patient handling systems to test the reliability and validity of the Safe Patient Handling Survey (TM) SPH Survey(TM), a perception survey and improvement tool for employees and employers. Currently there is a lack of tools for evaluating patient handling systems. The survey contains 55 questions divided into 6 clusters, staff and patient injury and violence questions, and picture questions depicting unsafe techniques. The data were analysed to see how the SPH Survey(TM) scores correlate with incidents, and its ability to detect differences between the two units. The results of the Pearson and Cronbach(TM) alpha tests show strong reliability, validity and consistency of the SPH Survey(TM). ANOVA comparison of means and Spearman(TM) rho tests shows that higher (better) scores on the SPH Survey(TM) clusters correlate with lower numbers of patient injuries, lower reports of verbal and physical violence episodes, and lower staff injuries. Differences were detected between the units with Unit 2 scoring higher than Unit 1 in all SPH Survey(TM) clusters and scoring lower in staff and patient injuries and violence incidents. Although the analysis was limited by the small sample size, the study has created a sound basis for further investigation. The SPH Survey(TM) is shown to be an easy way to reliably evaluate patient handling systems and workplace culture, target improvement initiatives, and continually monitor the level of patient handling risk in the workplace. Low-risk patient handling gives health care providers the means to focus on delivering high quality patient care, without endangering their own health and well-being. |
|
