22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    2
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Workplace Hazards Faced by Nursing Assistants in the United States: A Focused Literature Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Nursing assistants (NAs) make up a large share of the healthcare provider workforce and their numbers are expected to grow. NAs are predominantly women who earn a low wage and report financial, work, and family demands. Working as a NA is hazardous; this manuscript specifically examines the biological/infectious, chemical, enviromechanical, physical and psychosocial hazards that appear in the literature to date. A focused search strategy was used to review literature about hazards that fell into each of the five aforementioned domains. While some hazards that were documented were clear, such as exposure to influenza because of close contact with patients (biological/infectious), or exposure to hazardous drugs (chemical), literature was limited. The majority of the literature we reviewed fell into the domain of psychosocial hazards and centered on stress from workplace organization issues (such as mandatory overtime, lack of managerial support, and feeling rushed). More research is needed to understand which hazards NAs identify as most concerning and tailored interventions are needed for risk mitigation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature.

          Increasingly, health policy decision-makers and professionals are turning to research-based evidence to support decisions about policy and practice. Systematic reviews are useful for gathering, summarizing, and synthesizing published and unpublished research about clearly defined interventions. State-of-the-evidence reviews are broader than traditional systematic reviews and may include not only published and unpublished research, but also published and unpublished non-research literature. Decisions about whether to include this "grey literature" in a review are challenging and lead to many questions about whether the advantages outweigh the challenges. The primary purpose of this article is to describe what constitutes grey literature, and methods to locate it and assess its quality. The secondary purpose is to discuss the core issues to consider when making decisions to include grey literature in a state-of-the-evidence review. A recent state-of-the-evidence review is used as an exemplar to present advantages and challenges related to including grey literature in a review. Despite the challenges, in the exemplar, inclusion of grey literature was useful to validate the results of a research-based literature search. Decisions about whether to include grey literature in a state-of-the-evidence review are complex. A checklist to assist in decision-making was created as a tool to assist the researcher in determining whether it is advantageous to include grey literature in a review.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development and evaluation of a multifaceted ergonomics program to prevent injuries associated with patient handling tasks.

            Nurses have one of the highest rates of work-related musculoskeletal injury of any profession. Over the past 30 years, efforts to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders in nurses have been largely unsuccessful. The primary goal of this program was to create safer working environments for nursing staff who provide direct patient care. Our first objective was to design and implement a multifaceted program that successfully integrated evidence-based practice, technology, and safety improvement. The second objective was to evaluate the impact of the program on injury rate, lost and modified work days, job satisfaction, self-reported unsafe patient handling acts, level of support for program, staff and patient acceptance, program effectiveness, costs, and return on investment. The intervention included six program elements: (1) Ergonomic Assessment Protocol, (2) Patient Handling Assessment Criteria and Decision Algorithms, (3) Peer Leader role, "Back Injury Resource Nurses", (4) State-of-the-art Equipment, (5) After Action Reviews, and (6) No Lift Policy. A pre-/post design without a control group was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a patient care ergonomics program on 23 high risk units (19 nursing home care units and 4 spinal cord injury units) in 7 facilities. Injury rates, lost work days, modified work days, job satisfaction, staff , and patient acceptance, program effectiveness, and program costs/savings were compared over two nine month periods: pre-intervention (May 2001-January 2002) and post-intervention (March 2002-November 2002). Data were collected prospectively through surveys, weekly process logs, injury logs, and cost logs. The program elements resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the rate of musculoskeletal injuries as well as the number of modified duty days taken per injury. While the total number of lost workdays decreased by 18% post-intervention, this difference was not statistically significant. There were statistically significant increases in two subscales of job satisfaction: professional status and tasks requirements. Self-reports by nursing staff revealed a statistically significant decrease in the number of 'unsafe' patient handling practices performed daily. Nurses ranked program elements they deemed to be "extremely effective": equipment was rated as most effective (96%), followed by No Lift Policy (68%), peer leader education program (66%), ergonomic assessment protocol (59%), patient handling assessment criteria and decision algorithms (55%), and lastly after action reviews (41%). Perceived support and interest for the program started at a high level for managers and nursing staff and remained very high throughout the program implementation. Patient acceptance was moderate when the program started but increased to very high by the end of the program. Although the ease and success of program implementation initially varied between and within the facilities, after six months there was strong evidence of support at all levels. The initial capital investment for patient handling equipment was recovered in approximately 3.75 years based on annual post-intervention savings of over $200,000/year in workers' compensation expenses and cost savings associated with reduced lost and modified work days and worker compensation. This multi-faceted program resulted in an overall lower injury rate, fewer modified duty days taken per injury, and significant cost savings. The program was well accepted by patients, nursing staff, and administrators. Given the significant increases in two job satisfaction subscales (professional status and task requirements), it is possible that nurse recruitment and retention could be positively impacted.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Nursing Home Staff Turnover and Retention: An Analysis of National Level Data

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                19 May 2017
                May 2017
                : 14
                : 5
                : 544
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing, 4008 Carrington Hall, CB# 7460, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
                [2 ]North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health, 1700 Airport Road Rm 343, CB# 7502, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; rogersb@ 123456email.unc.edu
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: annmarie.walton@ 123456unc.edu ; Tel.: +1-919-843-6134
                Article
                ijerph-14-00544
                10.3390/ijerph14050544
                5451994
                28534859
                11f8409b-365f-4ad6-be60-e815b7443295
                © 2017 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 January 2017
                : 16 May 2017
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                nursing assistants,workplace hazards,occupational health
                Public health
                nursing assistants, workplace hazards, occupational health

                Comments

                Comment on this article