Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling
Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing t...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Villarroya, A. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
9 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis - Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER, 2016, IE, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:52 ; year:2016 ; pages:100-108 ; extent:9 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV024274712 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV024274712 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230625142550.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBVA2016006000019.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV024274712 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 650 |a 600 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 650 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 600 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 333.7 |a 610 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 43.12 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 43.13 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 44.13 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Villarroya, A. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 9 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. | ||
| 520 | |a Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Hospitals |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Ergonomics |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Patient handling |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Risk assessment |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Arezes, P. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Díaz-Freijo, S. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fraga, F. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER |t Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis |d 2016 |d IE |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV013868330 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:52 |g year:2016 |g pages:100-108 |g extent:9 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-GGO | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 43.12 |j Umweltchemie |q VZ |
| 936 | b | k | |a 43.13 |j Umwelttoxikologie |q VZ |
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.13 |j Medizinische Ökologie |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 52 |j 2016 |h 100-108 |g 9 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 650 | ||
| author_variant |
a v av |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
villarroyaaarezespdazfreijosfragaf:2016----:oprsnewefvrsassmnmtos |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
43.12 43.13 44.13 |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 doi GBVA2016006000019.pica (DE-627)ELV024274712 (ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 600 650 DE-600 600 DE-600 610 VZ 333.7 610 VZ 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 bkl Villarroya, A. verfasserin aut Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment Elsevier Arezes, P. oth Díaz-Freijo, S. oth Fraga, F. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis 2016 IE Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV013868330 volume:52 year:2016 pages:100-108 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-GGO GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 43.12 Umweltchemie VZ 43.13 Umwelttoxikologie VZ 44.13 Medizinische Ökologie VZ AR 52 2016 100-108 9 045F 650 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 doi GBVA2016006000019.pica (DE-627)ELV024274712 (ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 600 650 DE-600 600 DE-600 610 VZ 333.7 610 VZ 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 bkl Villarroya, A. verfasserin aut Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment Elsevier Arezes, P. oth Díaz-Freijo, S. oth Fraga, F. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis 2016 IE Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV013868330 volume:52 year:2016 pages:100-108 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-GGO GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 43.12 Umweltchemie VZ 43.13 Umwelttoxikologie VZ 44.13 Medizinische Ökologie VZ AR 52 2016 100-108 9 045F 650 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 doi GBVA2016006000019.pica (DE-627)ELV024274712 (ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 600 650 DE-600 600 DE-600 610 VZ 333.7 610 VZ 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 bkl Villarroya, A. verfasserin aut Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment Elsevier Arezes, P. oth Díaz-Freijo, S. oth Fraga, F. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis 2016 IE Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV013868330 volume:52 year:2016 pages:100-108 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-GGO GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 43.12 Umweltchemie VZ 43.13 Umwelttoxikologie VZ 44.13 Medizinische Ökologie VZ AR 52 2016 100-108 9 045F 650 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 doi GBVA2016006000019.pica (DE-627)ELV024274712 (ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 600 650 DE-600 600 DE-600 610 VZ 333.7 610 VZ 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 bkl Villarroya, A. verfasserin aut Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment Elsevier Arezes, P. oth Díaz-Freijo, S. oth Fraga, F. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis 2016 IE Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV013868330 volume:52 year:2016 pages:100-108 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-GGO GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 43.12 Umweltchemie VZ 43.13 Umwelttoxikologie VZ 44.13 Medizinische Ökologie VZ AR 52 2016 100-108 9 045F 650 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 doi GBVA2016006000019.pica (DE-627)ELV024274712 (ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 600 650 DE-600 600 DE-600 610 VZ 333.7 610 VZ 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 bkl Villarroya, A. verfasserin aut Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment Elsevier Arezes, P. oth Díaz-Freijo, S. oth Fraga, F. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis 2016 IE Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV013868330 volume:52 year:2016 pages:100-108 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-GGO GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 43.12 Umweltchemie VZ 43.13 Umwelttoxikologie VZ 44.13 Medizinische Ökologie VZ AR 52 2016 100-108 9 045F 650 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:52 year:2016 pages:100-108 extent:9 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:52 year:2016 pages:100-108 extent:9 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Umweltchemie Umwelttoxikologie Medizinische Ökologie |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Hospitals Ergonomics Patient handling Risk assessment |
| dewey-raw |
650 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Villarroya, A. @@aut@@ Arezes, P. @@oth@@ Díaz-Freijo, S. @@oth@@ Fraga, F. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV013868330 |
| dewey-sort |
3650 |
| id |
ELV024274712 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV024274712</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625142550.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2016006000019.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV024274712</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="a">600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">600</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">43.12</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">43.13</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.13</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Villarroya, A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Hospitals</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Ergonomics</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Patient handling</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Risk assessment</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arezes, P.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Díaz-Freijo, S.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fraga, F.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis</subfield><subfield code="d">2016</subfield><subfield code="d">IE</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV013868330</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:52</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:100-108</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-GGO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">43.12</subfield><subfield code="j">Umweltchemie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">43.13</subfield><subfield code="j">Umwelttoxikologie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.13</subfield><subfield code="j">Medizinische Ökologie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">52</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="h">100-108</subfield><subfield code="g">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">650</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Villarroya, A. |
| spellingShingle |
Villarroya, A. ddc 650 ddc 600 ddc 610 ddc 333.7 bkl 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 Elsevier Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling |
| authorStr |
Villarroya, A. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV013868330 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
650 - Management & auxiliary services 600 - Technology 610 - Medicine & health 333 - Economics of land & energy |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
650 600 650 DE-600 600 DE-600 610 VZ 333.7 610 VZ 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 bkl Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 650 ddc 600 ddc 610 ddc 333.7 bkl 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 Elsevier Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 650 ddc 600 ddc 610 ddc 333.7 bkl 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 Elsevier Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment |
| topic_browse |
ddc 650 ddc 600 ddc 610 ddc 333.7 bkl 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 Elsevier Hospitals Elsevier Ergonomics Elsevier Patient handling Elsevier Risk assessment |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
p a pa s d f sdf f f ff |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV013868330 |
| dewey-tens |
650 - Management & public relations 600 - Technology 610 - Medicine & health 330 - Economics |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV013868330 |
| title |
Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV024274712 (ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8 |
| title_full |
Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling |
| author_sort |
Villarroya, A. |
| journal |
Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis |
| journalStr |
Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology 300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
100 |
| author_browse |
Villarroya, A. |
| container_volume |
52 |
| physical |
9 |
| class |
650 600 650 DE-600 600 DE-600 610 VZ 333.7 610 VZ 43.12 bkl 43.13 bkl 44.13 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Villarroya, A. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 |
| dewey-full |
650 600 610 333.7 |
| title_sort |
comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling |
| title_auth |
Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling |
| abstract |
Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. |
| abstractGer |
Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-GGO GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 |
| title_short |
Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Arezes, P. Díaz-Freijo, S. Fraga, F. |
| author2Str |
Arezes, P. Díaz-Freijo, S. Fraga, F. |
| ppnlink |
ELV013868330 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T21:00:13.651Z |
| _version_ |
1803864887685808128 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV024274712</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625142550.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2016006000019.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV024274712</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0169-8141(15)30040-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="a">600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">600</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">43.12</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">43.13</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.13</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Villarroya, A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison between five risk assessment methods of patient handling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Several methods currently exist to assess risks resulting from manual handling of patients, based on various perspectives and analyzing different working conditions in the health-care sector. For that reason, a comparison of the main tools properties is discussed in the current study, establishing their strengths and weaknesses in order to provide guidance for the selection of a potential ideal method to use. The comparison is done based on ten items selected from MAPO, DINO, PTAI, Care Thermometer and Dortmund Approach methods, by qualifying each one with different scores, according to a predetermined criterion. For this purpose, a previous fieldwork was performed in various hospital wards and operating rooms of a public health service hospital, comparing the results of partial and total scores. It was observed that, although the five methods compared are similar in nature, the methodology of each them is different and, therefore, the results obtained are unequal. On one hand, it was found that MAPO, PTAI and Care Thermometer methods provide a more balanced approach on the different variables that, in a preventive level, influence the patient handling. On the other hand, it was evidenced that DINO and Dortmund Approach methods focus almost exclusively on the technical work of the caregiver and on the detailed postural analysis that determines the lumbar load, respectively. As a conclusion, we believe that it is necessary to advance with the improvement of these tools, and in this sense we propose the basic lines of a method that integrates those factors that were top rated.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Hospitals</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Ergonomics</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Patient handling</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Risk assessment</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arezes, P.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Díaz-Freijo, S.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fraga, F.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Huang, Kathie P. ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Cardiovascular risk in patients with alopecia areata (AA): A propensity-matched retrospective analysis</subfield><subfield code="d">2016</subfield><subfield code="d">IE</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV013868330</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:52</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:100-108</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.003</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-GGO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">43.12</subfield><subfield code="j">Umweltchemie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">43.13</subfield><subfield code="j">Umwelttoxikologie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.13</subfield><subfield code="j">Medizinische Ökologie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">52</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="h">100-108</subfield><subfield code="g">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">650</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400298 |