Energy expenditure, body-part discomfort and mental work load among nurses

The purpose of this prospective observational field study was to present a model for measuring energy expenditure among nurses and to determine if there was a difference between the energy expenditure of nurses providing direct care to adult patients on general medical-surgical units in two major metropolitan hospitals and a recommended energy expenditure of 3.0 kcal/minute over 8 hours. One-third of the predicted cycle ergometer VO2max for the study population was used to calculate the recommended energy expenditure.^ Two methods were used to measure energy expenditure among participants during an 8 hour day shift. First, the Energy Expenditure Prediction Program (EEPP) developed by the University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics was used to calculate energy expenditure using activity recordings from observation (OEE; n = 39). The second method used ambulatory electrocardiography and the heart rate-oxygen consumption relationship (HREE; n = 20) to measure energy expenditure. It was concluded that energy expenditure among nurses can be estimated using the EEPP. Using classification systems from previous research, work load among the study population was categorized as "moderate" but was significantly less than (p = 0.021) 3.0 kcal/minute over 8 hours or 1/3 of the predicted VO2max.^ In addition, the relationships between OEE, body-part discomfort (BPCDS) and mental work load (MWI) were evaluated. The relationships between OEE/BPCDS and OEE/MWI were not significant (p = 0.062 and 0.091, respectively). Among the study population, body-part discomfort significantly increased for upper arms, mid-back, lower-back, legs and feet by mid-shift and by the end of the shift, the increase was also significant for neck and thighs.^ The study also provided documentation of a comprehensive list of nursing activities. Among the most important findings were the facts that the study population spent 23% of the workday in a bent posture, walked an average of 3.14 miles, and spent two-thirds of the shift doing activities other than direct patient care, such as paperwork and communicating with other departments. A discussion is provided regarding the ergonomic implications of these findings. ^

Comparison of medical care costs, utilization, and satisfaction of AIDS patients with and without home care

A sample of 157 AIDS patients 17 years of age or over were followed for six months from the date of hospital discharge to derive average total cost of medical care, utilization and satisfaction with care. Those referred for home care follow-up after discharge from the hospital were compared with those who did not receive home care.^ The average total cost of medical care for all patients was $34,984. Home care patient costs averaged \$29,614 while patients with no home care averaged $37,091. Private hospital patients had average costs of \$50,650 compared with $25,494 for public hospital patients. Hospital days for the six months period averaged 23.9 per patient for the no home care group and 18.5 days for home care group. Patient satisfaction with care was higher in the home care group than no home care group, with a mean score of 68.2 compared with 61.1.^ Other health services information indicated that 98% of the private hospital patients had insurance while only 2% of public hospital patients had coverage. The time between the initial date of diagnosis with AIDS and admission to the study was longer for private hospital patients, survival time over the study period was shorter, and the number of hospitalizations prior to entering the study was higher for private hospital patients. These results suggest that patients treated in the private hospital were sicker than public hospital patients, which may explain their higher average total cost. Statistical analyses showed that cost and utilization have no significant relationship with home care or no home care when controlling for indicators of the severity of illness and treatment in public or private hospital.^ In future studies, selecting a matched group of patients from the same hospital and following them for nine months to one year would be helpful in making a more realistic comparison of the cost effectiveness of home care. ^

Information bias and lifetime mortality risks of radiation-induced cancer

Additive and multiplicative models of relative risk were used to measure the effect of cancer misclassification and DS86 random errors on lifetime risk projections in the Life Span Study (LSS) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors. The true number of cancer deaths in each stratum of the cancer mortality cross-classification was estimated using sufficient statistics from the EM algorithm. Average survivor doses in the strata were corrected for DS86 random error ($\sigma$ = 0.45) by use of reduction factors. Poisson regression was used to model the corrected and uncorrected mortality rates with covariates for age at-time-of-bombing, age at-time-of-death and gender. Excess risks were in good agreement with risks in RERF Report 11 (Part 2) and the BEIR-V report. Bias due to DS86 random error typically ranged from $-$15% to $-$30% for both sexes, and all sites and models. The total bias, including diagnostic misclassification, of excess risk of nonleukemia for exposure to 1 Sv from age 18 to 65 under the non-constant relative projection model was $-$37.1% for males and $-$23.3% for females. Total excess risks of leukemia under the relative projection model were biased $-$27.1% for males and $-$43.4% for females. Thus, nonleukemia risks for 1 Sv from ages 18 to 85 (DRREF = 2) increased from 1.91%/Sv to 2.68%/Sv among males and from 3.23%/Sv to 4.02%/Sv among females. Leukemia excess risks increased from 0.87%/Sv to 1.10%/Sv among males and from 0.73%/Sv to 1.04%/Sv among females. Bias was dependent on the gender, site, correction method, exposure profile and projection model considered. Future studies that use LSS data for U.S. nuclear workers may be downwardly biased if lifetime risk projections are not adjusted for random and systematic errors. (Supported by U.S. NRC Grant NRC-04-091-02.) ^