Bariatric patients and the use of mobile hoists : user experiences from three hospitals in South Australia

Nursing personnel are consistently identified as one of the occupational groups most at risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. During the moving and handling of bariatric patients, the weight of the patient combined with atypical body mass contributes to a significant risk of injury to the care provider and patient. This is further compounded by the shape, mobility and co-operation of the patient. The aim of this study was determine user experiences and design requirements for mobile hoists with bariatric patients. Structured interviews were conducted with six experienced injury management staff from the Manual Task Services department of three hospitals in Adelaide, South Australia. All staff had experience in patient handling, the use of patient handling equipment and the provision of patient handling training. A series of open-ended questions were structured around five main themes: 1) patient factors; 2) building/vehicle space and design; 3) equipment and furniture; 4) communication; and 5) staff issues. Questions focussed on the use of mobile hoists for lifting and transferring bariatric patients. Interviews were supplemented with a walk-through of the hospital to view the types of mobile hoists used, and the location and storage of equipment. Across the three hospitals there were differing classification systems to define bariatric patients. Ensuring patient dignity, respect and privacy were viewed as important in the management and rehabilitation of bariatric patients. Storage and space constraints were considered factors restricting the use of mobile floor hoists, with ceiling hoists being the preferred method for patient transfers. When using mobile floor hoists, the forces required to push, pull and manoeuvre, as well as sudden unstable movements of the hoist were considered important risks factors giving rise to a risk of injury to the care provider. Record keeping and purchasing policies appeared to inhibit the effective use of patient handling equipment. The moving and handling of bariatric patients presents complex and challenging issues. A co-ordinated and collaborative approach for moving and handling bariatric patients is needed across the range of care providers. Designers must consider both user and patient requirements.

A conceptual model of capability learning for the 21st century knowledge economy

This chapter proposes a conceptual model for optimal development of needed capabilities for the contemporary knowledge economy. We commence by outlining key capability requirements of the 21st century knowledge economy, distinguishing these from those suited to the earlier stages of the knowledge economy. We then discuss the extent to which higher education currently caters to these requirements and then put forward a new model for effective knowledge economy capability learning. The core of this model is the development of an adaptive and adaptable career identity, which is created through a reflective process of career self-management, drawing upon data from the self and the world of work. In turn, career identity drives the individual’s process of skill and knowledge acquisition, including deep disciplinary knowledge. The professional capability learning thus acquired includes disciplinary skill and knowledge sets, generic skills, and also skills for the knowledge economy, including disciplinary agility, social network capability, and enterprise skills. In the final part of this chapter, we envision higher education systems that embrace the model, and suggest steps that could be taken toward making the development of knowledge economy capabilities an integral part of the university experience.

The two dimensions of virtual and collocated project teams or what project team members WANT and GET : an empirical study

The current paper compares and investigates the discrepancies in motivational drives of project team members with respect to their project environment in collocated and distributed (virtual) project teams. The set of factors, which in this context are called ‘Sense of Ownership’, is used as a scale to measure these discrepancies using one tailed t tests. These factors are abstracted from theories of motivation, team performance, and team effectiveness and are related to ‘Nature of Work’, ‘Rewards’, and ‘Communication’. It has been observed that ‘virtual ness’ does not seem to impact the motivational drives of the project team members or the way the project environments provide or support those motivational drives in collocated and distributed projects. At a more specific level in terms of the motivational drives of the project team (‘WANT’) and the ability of the project environment to provide or support those factors (‘GET’), in collocated project teams, significant discrepancies were observed with respect to financial and non financial rewards, learning opportunities, nature of work and project specific communication, while in distributed teams, significant discrepancies with respect to project centric communication, followed by financial rewards and nature of work. Further, distributed project environments seem to better support the team member motivation than collocated project environments. The study concludes that both the collocated and distributed project environments may not be adequately supporting the motivational drives of its project team members, which may be frustrating to them. However, members working in virtual team environments may be less frustrated than their collocated counterparts as virtual project environments are better aligned with the motivational drives of their team members vis-à-vis the collocated project environments.