A Comparative Force Assessment of 4 Methods to Move a Patient Up a Bed

  • Mike FrayEmail author
  • George Holgate
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)


This study compared four different postures and positions regularly suggested for moving a patient up towards the head of the bed, using both novice and expert users. The trial was carried out in a laboratory using 21 participants (10 novices and 11 experts). All participants completed all conditions (n = 4) three times each (n = 3 repetitions). The physical force at each hand was recorded using electronic four compression/tension meters, recorded on DasyLab software. After each condition a subjective review questionnaire was completed. The data was processed with excel and SPSS to evaluate the differences between the conditions. A significant statistical reduction was found when comparing combined force for all carers (F(3,27) = 24.63, p < .05) and the load per individual (F(2.21,44.21) = 27.26, p < .05). However there was found to be no statistical difference between left and right hand or upper or lower hand. Transfers carried out with the carer pulling the patient towards them corresponded with a lower force to complete the transfer. This study suggests that a position with an oblique offset base and an action of pull and push in line with the carer could be the preferred position for a wide range of patient transfers.


Biomechanics Patient transfers Perceived effort 


  1. Alamgir H, Cvitkovich Y, Yu S, Yassi A (2007) Work-related injury among direct care occupations in British Columbia, Canada. Occup Environ Med 64(11):769–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Nurses Association (ANA) (2013) Safe patient handling and mobility, 1st edn. American Nurses Association, Silver Spring.
  3. Black T, Shah S, Busch A et al (2011) Effect of transfer, lifting and repositioning (TLR) injury prevention program on musculoskeletal injury among direct care workers. J Occup Environ Hyg 8(4):226–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks A, Orchard S (2011) Core person handling skills. In: Smith J (ed) The guide to the handling of people: a systems approach, 6th edn (see moving up the bed). BackCare, Middlesex, pp 139–142Google Scholar
  5. Cohen MH, Nelson GG, Green DA et al (2010) Patient handling and movement assessments: a white paper. The Facility Guidelines Institute, DallasGoogle Scholar
  6. Fray MJ, Hignett S (2015) An evaluation of the biomechanical risks for a range of methods to raise a patient from supine lying to sitting in a hospital bed. In: 19th triennial congress of the IEA, Australia, 9–14 August 2015Google Scholar
  7. Garg A, Kapellusch JM (2012) Long-term efficacy of an ergonomics program that includes patient-handling devices on reducing musculoskeletal injuries to nursing personnel. Hum Factors 54(4):608–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garg A, Owen B, Beller D et al (1991) A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. Ergonomics 34:289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ISO 11228–2 (2007) Ergonomics-manual handling–part 2: pushing and pulling. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. ISO (2012) Ergonomics-manual handling of people in the healthcare sector: an edited summary of ISO Technical Report 12296Google Scholar
  11. Jäger M, Jordan C, Theilmeirer A, Wortmann N, Kuhn S, Nienhaus A, Luttmann A (2012) Lumbar-load analysis of manual patient-handling activities for biomechanical overload prevention among healthcare workers. Ann Occup Hyg 57(5):528–544Google Scholar
  12. Johnsson C, Carlsson R, Lagerström M (2002) Evaluation of training in patient handling and moving skills among hospital and home care personnel. Ergonomics 45(12):850–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jordan C, Luttmann A, Theilmeier A, Kuhn S, Wortmann N, Jäger M (2011) Characteristic values of the lumbar load of manual patient handling for the application in workers’ compensation procedures. J Occup Med Toxicol 6(1):17.
  14. Keir P, MacDonell C (2004) Muscle activity during patient transfers: a preliminary study on the influence of lift assists and experience. Ergonomics 47(3):296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lim H, Black T, Shah S et al (2011) Evaluating repeated patient handling injuries following the implementation of a multi-factor ergonomic intervention program among health care workers. J Saf Res 42:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGill S, Kavcic N (2005) Transfer of the horizontal patient: The effect of a friction reducing assistive device on low back mechanics. Ergonomics 48(8):915–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelson A, Lloyd JD, Menzel N, Gross C (2003) Preventing nursing back injuries: redesigning patient handling task. AACHN J 51(3):126–134Google Scholar
  18. NHS (2010) Guidance for the moving and handling of patients and inanimate loads (version 3).
  19. Owen BD, Staehler KS (2003) Decreasing back stress in home care. Home Healthc Nurse 21(3):180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pellino TA, Owen B, Knapp L, Noack J (2006) The evaluation of mechanical devices for lateral transfer on perceived exertion and patient comfort. Orthop Nurs 25(1):4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schibye B, Hansen AF, Hye-Knudsen CT, Essendrop M, Bocher M, Skotte J (2003) Biomechanical analysis of the effect of changing patient-handling technique. Appl Ergon 34(2):115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith J (2005) The guide to the handling of people, 5th edn. BackCare, TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith J (ed) (2011) The guide to the handling of people: a systems approach, 6th edn. BackCare, MiddlesexGoogle Scholar
  24. Warming S, Precht D, Suadicani P, Ebbehoj N (2009) Musculoskeletal complaints among nurses related to patient handling tasks and psychosocial factors—based on logbook registrations. Appl Ergon 40:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Waters TR (2007) When is it safe to manually lift a patient? Am J Nurs 107:53–58. (quiz 59)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loughborough Design SchoolLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations