Putting Policy and Research into Practice

Dr. Annalee Yassi, MD, MSc, FRCPCCanada Research Chair in Trans-disciplinary Health Promotion ResearchFounding Executive Director, Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC

Director, Institute of Health Promotion Research, U of British Columbia

Professor, Department of Health Care & Epidemiology, U of British Columbia

OUTLINE1.1. The IssuesThe Issues

2.2. Research: The Evidence Research: The Evidence

3.3. OHSAH: Research into PracticeOHSAH: Research into Practice

a. “No Manual Lifting”

b. Prevention and Early Active Return-to-work Safely (PEARS)

c. Community Alliance for Health Research

4.4. ConclusionsConclusions

1.1. The issues:The issues: High injury rates & long duration of time loss post injury

$1997-2001: more than 40,359 time-loss WCB claims to BC healthcare workers;

$More than 2 million days lost;

$Direct claims costs 1997-2001: $220 million - WCB premiums for healthcare sector have been raised by 40% for 2001 ($25 million);

Healthcare sector in perspective

• The Healthcare sector is the No.1 source of time loss claims and days lost in BC

• More than Logging• More than

Manufacturing• More than

Construction

Subsector Claims Days Lost7660 Healthcare & SS 8,387 445,300 7410 Retail 6,559 254,800 7610 Accom,Food,Leis. 6,469 227,400 7210 Gen.Construction 5,972 357,300 7320 Transportation 5,618 324,500 7640 Other Services 4,828 227,000 7140 Wood/Paper Prod 4,052 250,700 7120 Metal & Non-metallic Mineral3,921 157,900 7110 Food & Bev Prod. 2,661 112,900 7530 Public Admin 2,610 91,700 All Industries 69,007 3,491,934

Nearly 1 in 8 of all time-loss injuries in 2001

12% of all Days Lost in 2000

Trends in days lost

Overexertion from patient handling is the greatest cause of injury.

Number of claims by type of accident

2000

2.2. Research: The Evidence Research: The Evidence • good OH&S practices, • functional joint OH&S committees, • return-to-work programs, • compliance with safety regulations, • senior management commitment to OH&S• and worker participation in decision making,

lead to lead to lower injury rateslower injury rates than organizations than organizations withoutwithout these characteristics.these characteristics.

• Habeck et al. Employer factors related to workers’ compensation claims and disability management. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34:210-226, 1991.

• Norman R, Wells R. Ergonomic interventions for reducing musculoskeletal disorders. In T. Sullivan (ed.), Injury and the New World of Work. Columbia Press, 2000.

Research: The Evidence Research: The Evidence • The quality of workplace accommodation

is crucial for return to work after soft tissue injuries;

• “Usual activity” is better than intensive physio off-site or bed rest;

• Extreme treatment is not necessary;

• Physicians require the ability to explain the nature of injury and dispel worker fears.

• Guzman et al. Perspectives of primary care physicians on return to work after an occupational soft tissue injury. In press Canadian Family Physician

• Malmivaara et al. The treatment of low back pain – bed rest, exercises, or ordinary activity? New England Journal of Medicine 1995

• Skouen et al. Relative cost effectiveness of extensive and light multidisciplinary treatment programs vs treatment as usual for patients … SPINE Vol 27 Number 9, 2002

Research: The Evidence Research: The Evidence cont’d

Most research is based on single dimensional, medical models, even though work injuries arise from complex interactions;

Workplace culture characteristics contribute to both injury incidence and subsequent disability experience.

Evidence points to the need for more comprehensive programs – that include work place culture, and address both primary and secondary prevention.

• Yassi et al. “Injury Prevention and Return to Work: Breaking Down the Two Solitudes”, In chapter T. Sullivan, J.W. Frank. (Eds) New Views on Preventing Work–Related Disability. Taylor & Francis Books Ltd. 2002.

3.3. OHSAH: Research into PracticeOHSAH: Research into Practice

The OHSAH mandate is specific:

To identify and share best practices

To design pilot programs to implement these practices

To evaluate their effectiveness

Methods:A.A. Use evidence, (local and published internationally) to develop and disseminate best practice guidelines

C.C. Rigorous evaluation of effectiveness, and cost-benefit of workplace

interventions

B.B. Create partnership initiatives withfunding based on labour - management cooperation and scientific validity

The Evidence… and its implicationsBoth world literature and WCB data from BC substantiate high risk of MSI from patient handling –

Thus unions and management prioritised the need to reduce these injuries

but

Mechanical devices cannot be used in all situations; and, without proper training, may be counterproductive* thus guidelines were needed.• *Daynard et al. Biomechanical analysis of cumulative spinal loads during patient handling

activities: A substudy of a randomised controlled trial of measures to prevent lift and transfer injury to health care workers. Applied Ergonomics, 2001; 32: 199-214.

Safe Patient Handling Guidelines

a consultation process, and an outline of workplace commitment, with terms and roles clearly defined;

education for the workforce, MSI risk identification;

MSI risk assessments; MSI risk control; training; and evaluation of the control

measures and the MSIP itself.

MSIP Program Implementation Guide

Mechanical total body lift The total body lift supports the entire weight of the patient. If the patient cannot can not bear we ight to move him/herself, - due to obesity, paralysis, injury, etc., use a mechanical lift to move them. It might be an overhead ceiling lift or a floor-based lift, hydraulic or manual. Staff should be trained in how to use the lift.

An overhead track-mounted ceiling lift

12,000 copies to date

Safe Patient Handling Handbook

A rigorous evaluation of A rigorous evaluation of effectiveness and cost-benefit of effectiveness and cost-benefit of a workplace interventiona workplace interventionThe effectiveness of implementing a ‘no lift’ policy, with training and installing mechanical lifts, was evaluated in the extended care unit of St. Joseph’s Hospital. The hospital had received WCB funding to install 65 ceiling lifts.

Methods to assess effectiveness and cost benefits:

A retrospective analysis was conducted for injuries that occurred 3 years pre- versus 1.5 years post-installation; the time interval during which the installation occurred was not included;

Surveys assessing the prevalence of MSI symptoms and satisfaction were completed pre- and post-intervention;

Costs and benefits attributable to the Lifting System Project were identified and compared for a one-year period pre- and post-intervention.

0

5

10

15

20

25

repositioning patient lifts patienttransfers

Inju

ry R

ates

(M

SIs

/100

,000

wor

ked-

hour

s)

pre-intervention

post-intervention, pre-MSIP training

post-intervention,during/post-MSIP training

MSI rates

• Ronald et al. Effectiveness of installing overhead ceiling lifts on reducing musculoskeletal injuries in an extended care hospital. AAOHN 2002, 50(3):120-127.

Payback from WCB perspective

(non-discounted costs & benefits)

• Spiegel et al. Cost-benefit of implementing a resident lifting system in an extended care hospital. AAOHN 2002, 50(3):128-134.

Cumulative present value costs and benefits from WCB

perspective

The incidence of lift and transfer claims decreased by 58% (from 24 to 1, p=.01).

The costs per 100,000 hours worked were reduced by 69% (from $65,997 to $20,731).

Savings come from both reduced MSI incidence and reduced duration of claims.

Staff preferred ceiling lifts to manual methods.

Results

The Comox project summation:

The involvement of the workers in implementing this intervention changed the culture of the workplace – likely playing a major role in decreasing time loss and costs.

The Comox project was implemented with an initial one-lift pilot, with direct staff involvement in implementation decisions, evaluating its effectiveness, and the feasibility of a broader deployment.

St. Joseph’s staff testimonial

“I don’t work in pain anymore… The lifts lift the patients – and lift our spirits!” - Joy Le Blanc’s testimony.

“Thanks to overhead lifts, patient dignity has been re-instated…” Penny Hacking

Staff Joy Le Blanc, Care Aide, Penny Hac k-ing, Nurse Manager, Sandra Woiden, Manager, at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Comox

Research and Policy into Practice

The evidence

Dr. Barbara Silverstein,

researcher with the Washington State Labor Department,

speaking at the provincial healthcare leaders meeting in

Vancouver on January 31, 2001.

“zero-lift programs actually do prevent injuries AND are cost-effective.”

The evidence Speaker Marie-Josée

Robitaille, Director of Professional Services to Care Facilities with ASSTSAS, compared traditional floor lifts with ceiling lifts to

emphasize cost effectiveness and

efficiency.“...no employment accident related to patient transfers was recorded in the rooms where ceiling lifts were available..”

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGBetween

Association of UnionsAnd

Health Employers Association of British Columbia

From the MoU “…establish a financing framework to make

funds available to purchase the necessary medical equipment;”

“…clear industry guidelines for safe patients / residents handling;”

“Encourage the full participation of the local Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee in the development, implementation and on-going monitoring of this goal;”

From the MoU

“Recommend to the Ministry of Health that all new health care facilities be equipped with appropriate lifting equipment;” and

“Produce an annual report card on the progress to date, including specific recommendations for the coming year.”*

*Memorandum of Understanding re Manual Lifting. Health Employers Association of BC and the Association of

Unions; March 18/19 2001

The Ministry of Health Services agreed to provide $15 million for the purchase of electrical beds and / or lifting equipment.

The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) of BC has indicated their willingness to participate.

Capital Equipment Procurement

16 months later

Access to WCB’s injury and claims data is in place, to enable better tracking and evaluation of injury rates.

OHSAH has collected program material to aid health authorities in equipment purchase decisions. This material has been placed on OHSAH’s website.

The MOHS has agreed to the carry over of unspent funds into the new fiscal year.

Capital Equipment Procurement

16 months later, cont’d

Prevention Early Active Return-to-workSafely

Preventing injuries through hazard assessment & workplace modifications

Early intervention including encouraging early reporting of signs and symptoms

Active involvement of the worker & other members of the PEAR team

Return to work of the injured worker….

The pear – a symbol of health & hope

PEARSPEARS

Practical application: OHSAH’s 20 Principles of “RTW”

1. Preventing disability must be seen as an extension of preventing the injury.

2. The focus of post-injury intervention must be on workplace accommodation.

3. All alternate or modified work assignments must be meaningful.

4. The program should build on previous experience within the workplace.

5. There must be an evidence-based education component and communication plan delivered for each of the stakeholder groups.

6. There must be recognition of and respect for existing patient-doctor relationships.

7. The program must be entirely voluntary.

20 Principles of RTW cont’d

8. The program must be designed for rapid and easy implementation.

9. The program should be independent of WCB claims processing.

10. Income continuity as part of this program should begin upon the injured worker’s entrance into the program and continue as long as the worker is participating in the program.

11. Provisions should be made for in-house rehabilitation wherever possible, either on-site or organized away from the workplace.

12. Union representatives must be involved in all stages of the design and implementation of the project, including decisions regarding accommodation of the injured worker.

20 Principles of RTW cont’d

13. The types of injuries to be the focus of intervention should, initially, be acute musculoskeletal injuries.

14. The scope and parameters of the programs should be as broad as possible, within the confines of the resources available.

15. All injuries must be carefully tracked, and outcomes clearly identified.

16. OHSAH will provide technical assistance. 17. OHSAH will be actively involved in all stages of

evaluation.18. OHSAH will assist in procuring needed equipment. 19. OHSAH funding will be used primarily for hiring a

qualified individual to lead and co-ordinate this integrated prevention and return-to-work program.

20. OHSAH funding will be provided on a “matching” contribution-in-kind basis.

Promote a healthy, safe work environment Define roles and responsibilities Perform ergonomic risk assessments Implement risk control measures Identify, and meet, educational needs Develop and maintain data collection system Evaluate the program

PROTOCOLS AT TIME OF INJURY: Report to supervisor/person in charge Report to PEARS Program Personnel (OHN or designate) Document injury / complete form / pick up program

package

24-48 HOURS POST INJURY Assessment by program OHN Review of incident/injury Assessment of treatment

and accommodation needs

TIME LOSS?

NO

Program Staff

Assessment

YES

Own doctor

DON’T KNOW

Program Staff

Assessment

YES NO

Program Staff

72 HOURS POST-INJURY

PEARS PROGRAM /

COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION

RTW

1. Injury rates: annual (pre vs. post-intervention with concurrent control group)

2. Time loss per injury (as above)

3. Total time loss: until 6 months post-injury (as above)

4. Re-injury rates within 6 months of injury (as above)

5. Pain and disability: baseline and 6 months post- injury (targeted group)

6. Satisfaction with program: survey at 6 months post injury (injured workers, union, managers, OHS staff, treating physicians/other practitioners)

7. Cost-benefit of the program

Outcome measures

Community Alliance for Health Community Alliance for Health Research (CAHR)Research (CAHR) Project #1 Creating a BC healthcare cohortProject #2 Caring for the caregivers of alternate level care patientsProject #3 Reducing injuries in intermediate care workersProject #4 Effectiveness and cost benefit of ceiling lifts to reduce

musculoskeletal injuryProject #5 Improving the health of homecare workersProject #6 Chemical substitution: employee health & organisational

impacts Project #7 Repositioning of patients in bed: multi-site trial of

George Pearson repositioning drawsheetProject #8 Health Evidence Application Linkage Network (HEALNet) Project #9 Towards building an effective and efficient regional

occupational health program for the healthcare sector in Winnipeg

Making Healthcare a Healthier Place to Work: A Partnership of Partnerships

Objective:

• To identify and compare how organisational and care factors related to ALC affect nurse health and well-being, injury rates, nurse retention and recruitment.

* The care given to the patients in an acute-care hospital bed, who no longer require acute medical care but whose discharge is delayed usually by the unavailability of post-hospital care.

Current Status of ALC in South Fraser Health Region (SFHR)

SFHR had the greatest shortage of extended care beds of any region in the province due to the rapidly growing elderly population (ALC Task Force Report, 1998).

The ALC population in the region’s four acute-care hospitals accounted for about 25% of inpatient days!

ALC patients are assigned and cared for in different wards with different characteristics (e.g., Dedicated ALC units, Geriatric Assessment Units (GAU), Mixture of ALC and others, etc.)

Injuries and ALC : Why the concern?

 The care of ALC patents often requires intensive lifting and transferring and / or suffer from dementia high injury risk.

By definition ALC patients are not in facilities optimally designed for their care (with respect to staff mix, equipment, training of staff, etc.).

The injury risk may depend on the characteristics of units where they are housed – and specifically on how the existence of ALC patients was taken into consideration on these units.

Project Cohort and Variables Cohort

2,854 patient handling staff, employed on June 10, 2001 in any of the 4 hospitals in SFHR

Followed up from June 10 to December 10, 2001 with respect to injuries ( from databases)

Surveyed wrt job conditions on the units on which they worked Sept 10, 2001, as well as their perceptions and self-reported health.

INJURY RISK FOR CAREGIVERS OF ALC PATIENTS

• Of the 2,854 patient handling staff, 533 (18.7%) sustained an injury in the previous year

• 1,654 cohort members (58% of all patient care staff – RNs, LPNs, CEs and Rehab staff) work on a ward with ALC patients

• Injury rates ranged from 8% on dedicated ALC wards to 20.3% on “high-mix” wards and 20.7% GAUs

INJURY RISK FOR CAREGIVERS OF ALC PATIENTS cont’d

• Risk of patient handling injury was 3.5-4x higher for “high-mix” and GAU compared to non-ALC; and 7.5x higher for violence-related injuries

• Age, senority and hospital were not significantly associated with risk of injury but occupation (being an LPN or Care Aide, OR=1.58wrt RN), ALC care model, and history of previous injury (OR = 3.23) were.

SATISFACTION & BURN-OUT•For those who did not enjoy ALC, this effected satisfaction with profession, hospital and unit, as well as burn-out

•Satisfaction was high on GAU and dedicated ALC and lower on mixed wards

•Factor analysis with the Nurse Work Index resulted in factors labeled “perceived support for nursing professionalism”, “support of management”, “satisfactory resource allocation”, and “working relationships”. Other than perceived “working relationships,” all factors varied significantly by ALC model

•Characteristics of management style and work environment were powerful determents of satisfaction, burn-out and self-rated health, but were dwarfed by variable such as occupation and ALC model with respect to predicting injuries.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS•Dedicated ALC wards are a better way of caring for ALC patients with respect to reducing risk of injuries to staff

•Greater attention needs to be paid to preventing injuries on GAUs, especially violence related injuries

•Training, work assignments and other factors to prevent injuries to LPNs and Care Aides should be reviewed

•Staff should be informed upon recruitment whether they will be working with ALC patients or on wards with a high ALC patient load; an effort should be made to not place staff to work with ALC patients who don’t enjoy this

•Increased worker participation and management attention to health and safety could improve perceived management supportiveness and satisfaction with the hospital and could decrease burn-out

CONCLUSIONS:

Joint union-management governance

Strong partnership with the research community

Addressing workplace health and safety

Reducing injuries

Reducing time loss and injury costs

OHSAH#301-1195 West Broadway

Vancouver, BC V6H 3X5Phone: (604) 775-4034

Toll free: 1-800-359-6612Fax: (604) 775-4031

http://www.ohsah.bc.ca