A NIOSH Center for Excellence to Promote a Healthier Workforce Evidence for the Relationship between Work Organization, Worker Safety, and Patient/Resident Outcomes Rebecca Gore, Alicia Kurowski, Supriya Lahiri, Saira Latif, Nadine Mpolla, Bora Plaku-Alakbarova, Laura Punnett, & ProCare Research Team University of Massachusetts Lowell Lowell, MA, USA
[Heathcare and Social Assistance] is burdened by the historical and entrenched belief that patient care issues supersede the personal safety and health of workers and that it is acceptable for HCSA workers to have less than optimal protections against the risks of hazardous exposures or injuries. Identification of Research Opportunities for the Next Decade of NORA: State of the Sector Healthcare and Social Assistance. NIOSH Publication No. 2009-138.
Health Care Worker (HCW) Safety and Patient Safety Patients (& residents) and employees occupy a common environment, with common hazards. Patients affect employees health Employees affect patients health Patients and HCWs are both part of the same health care system. The environment of care and the environment of work are the same. - Dr. Andrew Vaughn, Mayo Clinic
Promoting Caregivers' Physical & Mental Health via Transdisciplinary Intervention ( ProCare ) Evaluate a safe resident handling program (SRHP) (2004-06) & other employee health activities in a large chain of long-term care facilities. 4
Questions for this presentation 1. Is SRH program effectiveness affected by work organization characteristics? 2. Are residents satisfaction or clinical outcomes affected by center organizational characteristics? 5
Direct Observations of CNA s Exposure Categories: Trunk, arm, and leg postures Weight in hands Lifting equipment (yes/no) F0: Baseline (Pre SRHP) F1: 3 mos. post SRHP F2: 12 mos. post SRHP F3: 24 mos. post SRHP F4: 36 mos. post SRHP Total Obs. Periods 60 56 100 88 57 Total Obs. Moments 15,185 16,031 25,472 24,652 17,365
Percentage of Resident Handling Observations 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% While* Handling Equipment Use in Resident Handling Equipment Use and Weight in Hands, before/after SRHP (% of investigator observations) 0% BL 3-Month 12-Month 24-Month 36-Month Percentage of Reposition & Transfer Observations 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Equipment Use* Use While Repositioning (Reposition/Transfer) and Transferring Reposition Transfer Baseline 3-Month 12-Month 24-Month 36-Month Percentage of Reposition and Transfer Observations Weight Weight in Hands in While (Reposition/Transfer) Repositioning and Transferring 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Baseline 3-Month 12-Month 24-Month 36-Month < 10 lbs 10-50 lbs > 50 lbs *
Composite Physical Workload Index: Nursing Assistants and Nurses Highest Workload 3.0 2.5 Physical Workload Index 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 Nursing Assistants While Resident Handling Nursing Assistants Nurses 0.0 BL 3-Month 12-Month 24-Month 36-Month
Variability among centers: Nursing aide equipment use while resident handling *p < 0.001 (Cochran-Armitage test of trend)
Variability among centers in physical workload index (nursing aides)
Variability among centers: Influence of work environment characteristics Change in observed device use or physical workload index, plotted against features of the work environment (multiple data sources): Time pressure (post-observation interviews) Adequacy of equipment (employee surveys) Communication among staff (employee surveys) Same 5 centers with direct observations and 24 months of follow-up
Observed Device Use in Resident Handling vs. Perceived Time Pressure Slope of Equipment Use While Resident Handling 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 Center B Center C Center E Center D Center A Slope of Equipment Use While Resident Handling Over Two Years Percent Change in Never Feeling Time Pressure 1400% 1200% 1000% 800% 600% 400% 200% 0% -200% Percent Change in Never Feeling Time Pressure
Physical Workload Index vs. Adequacy of Supplies and Equipment Slope of Physical Workload Index 0.00-0.01-0.02-0.03-0.04-0.05-0.06-0.07-0.08-0.09 Center B Center D Center E Center A Center C Slope of Physical Workload Index Over Two Years Percent Change in Rating of Adequacy of Supplies Over Two Years 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% Percent Change in Adequacy of Supplies Rating
Physical Workload Index vs. Perceived Staff-to-Staff Communication 0.00-0.01 Center B Center D Center E Center A Center C 200% Slope of Physical Workload Index -0.02-0.03-0.04-0.05-0.06-0.07-0.08-0.09 Slope of Physical Workload Index Over Two Years Percent Change in Rating of Staff-to-Staff Communication Over Two Years 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% Percent Change in Staff-to-Staff Communication Rating
Workers compensation claims for resident handling incidents (129 SNF s) before/after SRHP implementation 2.5 Rate Ratio 2 1.5 1 0.5 First 3 yrs Second 3 yrs RR of 1.0 = no change vs. pre-srhp rates 0 Resident handling (all) Help into/out of bed Help into/out of chair, toilet Help into/out of bath Help move in bed Resident handling, NOC
Total annualized net savings = $4.584 million Overall benefit-to-cost ratio at least 1.68 Average net savings = $143 per bed per year
Net savings per bed after implementation of Safe Resident Handling Program Time post intervention: < 5 years 5 years (n = 38 ) (n = 72 ) Avoided turnover costs $37 $67 Avoided workers comp.: Medical $124 $257 Avoided workers comp.: Indemnity $81 $148 Average net savings per bed $83 $258
Workplace Health Promotion (WHP) and average SRHP net savings Centers without WHP Centers with WHP $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 Minimal evidence of WHP health benefits (similar prevalences of smoking, obesity, etc.) Perhaps those centers have other positive organizational features, which led to WHP activities and also more effective SRHP? Better social support; lower intention to leave job
Use of Lifting Devices by Individual Employees Survey data from 18 nursing homes Four occasions after baseline (implementation of the Safe Resident Handling Program): 3 months (F1) 12 months (F2) 24 months (F3) 36 months (F4)
Individual self-reported equipment use How often do you use a patient lifting device? 40 30 3-mo 12-mo 20 10 0 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always If you don t use a patient lifting device every time, why not? Device unavailable when needed 25% Residents dislike them 17% I feel I don t need them 13% Not enough time 7% Too much extra effort 4% My co-workers don t use them 2%
Proportion of aides citing Residents do not like by frequency of equipment use (N= Centers; N'= Nurses Aides) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always F2 (N=18) (N'=863) F3 (N=15)(N'=691) F4 (N=6)(N'=263)
Is there a relationship between the experiences of nursing home workers and those of residents?
Work environment and residents satisfaction or adverse outcomes Employee satisfaction: third-party surveys of all employees (40% aides, 20% nurses) Resident satisfaction: third-party surveys of residents (35%) or their family members (65%) Rates of resident falls, pressure ulcers, and unexplained weight loss: data reported to CMS All variables summarized by center (n=194) for 2005-09
Overall employee satisfaction and resident satisfaction (2005-09), by center Average Resident Satisfaction (2005-09) Average Employee Satisfaction (2005-09)
Conclusions (I) Safe Resident Handling Program effectiveness: - Resident handling equipment use increased - Ergonomic exposures decreased: Time in resident handling Weight in hands Non-neutral body postures Composite biomechanical load index - Compensation claim rates and costs decreased - Turnover rates in clinical staff decreased (perhaps not all attributable to NLP)
Conclusions (II) Work environment features explain some variability in: Program effectiveness among centers Use of lift devices by individual workers Not enough time; Devices unavailable; Residents do not like equipment Residents satisfaction Residents risk of adverse outcomes (falls, pressure ulcers, unexplained weight loss)
Selected Publications 1. Kurowski A, et al. [2012] Changes in ergonomic exposures of nursing assistants after the introduction of a no-lift program in nursing homes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42:525-532. 2. Kurowski A, et al. [2012] Differences among nursing homes in outcomes of a safe resident handling program. Journal of Healthcare Risk Management 32(1):35-51. 3. Kurowski A, et al. A physical workload index to evaluate a safe resident handling program for clinical staff in nursing homes. Human Factors (accepted). 4. Lahiri S, et al. [2013] An economic analysis of a safe resident handling program in nursing homes. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 56 (4): 469 478.
Contacts and Acknowledgements University of Massachusetts Lowell Ms. Sandy Sun Email: CPHNEW@uml.edu Tel: 978-934-3268 CPH-NEW primary website: University of Connecticut Dr. Jeff Dussetschleger Email: JDussetschleger@uchc.edu Tel: 860-679-1393 CPH-NEW website at Univ. Conn.: www.oehc.uchc.edu/healthywork/ index.asp The Center for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace is supported by Grant Number U19-OH008857 from the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. This material is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH.