z-logo
Premium
Work organization and patient care staff injuries: The impact of different care models for “alternate level of care” patients
Author(s) -
Ostry Aleck S.,
Yassi A.,
Ratner P.A.,
Park I.,
Tate R.,
Kidd C.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
american journal of industrial medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.7
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1097-0274
pISSN - 0271-3586
DOI - 10.1002/ajim.10277
Subject(s) - medicine , psychosocial , multinomial logistic regression , acute care , cohort study , cohort , logistic regression , emergency medicine , prospective cohort study , occupational safety and health , risk assessment , health care , psychiatry , computer security , pathology , machine learning , computer science , economics , economic growth
Abstract Background The number of elderly patients who do not have acute‐care needs has increased in many North American hospitals. These alternate level care (ALC) patients are often cognitively impaired or physically dependent. The physical and psychosocial demands on caregivers may be growing with the increased presence of ALC patients leading to greater risk for injury among staff. Methods This prospective cohort study characterized several models for ALC care in four acute‐care hospitals in British Columbia, Canada. A cohort of 2,854 patient care staff was identified and followed for 6 months. The association between ALC model of care and type and severity of injury was examined using multinomial and ordinal logistic regression. Results Regression models demonstrated that the workers on ALC/medical nursing units with “high” ALC patient loads and specialized geriatric assessment units had the greatest risk for injury and the greatest risk for incurring serious injury. Among staff caring for ALC patients, those on dedicated ALC units had the least risk for injury and the least risk for incurring serious injury. Conclusions The way in which ALC care is organized in hospitals affects the risk and severity of injuries among patient care staff. Am. J. Ind. Med. 44:392–399, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here