Risk assessment of patient handling with ambulance stretcher systems (ramp/(winch), easi-loader, tail-lift) using biomechanical failure criteria

The research aims to carry out a detailed analysis of the loads applied by the ambulance workers when loading/unloading ambulance stretchers. The forces required of the ambulance workers for each system are measured using a load cell in a force handle arrangement. The process of loading and unloading is video recorded for all the systems to register the posture of the ambulance workers in different stages of the process. The postures and forces exerted by the ambulance workers are analyzed using biomechanical assessment software to examine if the work loads at any stage of the process are harmful. Kinetic analysis of each stretcher loading system is performed. Comparison of the kinetic analysis and measurements shows very close agreement for most of the cases. The force analysis results are evaluated against derived failure criteria. The evaluation is extended to a biomechanical failure analysis of the ambulance worker's lower back using 3DSSPP software developed at the Centre for Ergonomics at the University of Michigan. The critical tasks of each ambulance worker during the loading and unloading operations for each system are identified. Design recommendations are made to reduce the forces exerted based on loading requirements from the kinetic analysis. © 2006 IPEM.

Community pharmacists and people with dementia: a cross-sectional survey exploring experiences, attitudes, and knowledge of pain and its management

Objectives
To explore community pharmacists' experiences with and attitudes towards people with dementia, and to determine the knowledge they have about pain and its management in this patient population. 

Methods
A questionnaire comprising five sections, including the Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire, was mailed, on two occasions, during February and March 2011, to all community pharmacies in Northern Ireland (n=530). 

Results
The response rate was 34.3%. A greater proportion of pharmacists provided pharmaceutical care to people with dementia living at home (91.2%) than those living in care homes (40.1%). Respondents most frequently encountered queries relating to starting and stopping medications, compliance with medication, and availability of formulation types. The mean total score for the Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire measure was 72.8, indicating a positive attitude towards people with dementia, and respondents demonstrated a strong person-centred approach towards this patient population. The majority of respondents recognised the difficulty of assessing pain in people with dementia; however, younger pharmacists (p=0.041) and pharmacists who provided pharmaceutical care to people with dementia (p=0.012) were more likely to be aware of the pain assessment tools for use in people with dementia. Pharmacists appeared uncertain about how to appropriately manage pain in people with dementia.

Conclusions
The study has revealed that community pharmacists often encounter people with dementia, especially those living in their own homes, and they have positive attitudes towards the patient population. However, training in the assessment and management of pain in people with dementia must be developed to further improve their knowledge in this area. 

Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives

Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives C Morgan, L Adams, J Murray, R Dunlop, IK Walsh. Ian K Walsh, Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6DP Background and Purpose: Structured communication tools are used to improve team communication quality.1,2 The Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) tool is widely adopted within patient safety.3 SBAR effectiveness is reportedly equivocal, suggesting use is not sustained beyond initial training.4-6 Understanding perspectives of those using SBAR may further improve clinical communication. We investigated senior medical undergraduate perspectives on SBAR, particularly when communicating with senior colleagues. Methodology: Mixed methods data collection was used. A previously piloted questionnaire with 12 five point Lickert scale questions and 3 open questions was given to all final year medical students. A subgroup also participated in 10 focus groups, deploying strictly structured audio-recorded questions. Selection was by convenience sampling, data gathered by open text questions and comments transcribed verbatim. In-vivo coding (iterative, towards data saturation) preceded thematic analysis. Results: 233 of 255 students (91%) completed the survey. 1. There were clearly contradictory viewpoints on SBAR usage. A recurrent theme was a desire for formal feedback and a relative lack of practice/experience with SBAR. 2. Students reported SBAR as having variable interpretation between individuals; limiting use as a shared mental model. 3. Brief training sessions are insufficient to embed the tool. 4. Most students reported SBAR helping effective communication, especially by providing structure in stressful situations. 5. Only 18.5% of students felt an alternative resource might be needed. Sub analysis of the themes highlighted: A. Lack of clarity regarding what information to include and information placement within the acronym, B. Senior colleague negative response to SBAR C. Lack of conciseness with the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Despite a wide range of contradictory interpretation of SBAR utility, most students wish to retain the resource. More practice opportunities/feedback may enhance user confidence and understanding. References: (1) Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2004 Oct;13(Suppl 1):85-90. (2) d'Agincourt-Canning LG, Kissoon N, Singal M, Pitfield AF. Culture, communication and safety: lessons from the airline industry. Indian J Pediatr 2011 Jun;78(6):703-708. (3) Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009 Oct;13(5):384-390. (4) Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S, Cassity C, Spetman M, Xiao Y, et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012 Jun;38(6):261-268. (5) Ludikhuize J, de Jonge E, Goossens A. Measuring adherence among nurses one year after training in applying the Modified Early Warning Score and Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation instruments. Resuscitation 2011 Nov;82(11):1428-1433. (6) Cunningham NJ, Weiland TJ, van Dijk J, Paddle P, Shilkofski N, Cunningham NY. Telephone referrals by junior doctors: a randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of SBAR in a simulated setting. Postgrad Med J 2012 Nov;88(1045):619-626.