Simulation to Teach Safe Patient Handling and Mobility for Home Caregivers

Abstract

Safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) programs are needed in the home care environment. As patient-lifting technology and devices become more widely available for use in the home setting, caregivers need opportunities to learn how to properly use these devices. Nonmedical caregivers employed by personal support services agencies (PSSAs) and home caregivers have very limited access to opportunities for SPHM training in rural areas of Tennessee. Safe patient handling and mobility training utilizing simulation with an interprofessional approach was developed and provided to 17 nonmedical and family home caregivers. The training was evaluated utilizing Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model. Participants completed anonymous surveys immediately following the training and 4 to 6 weeks after the training. Survey I (n = 17): Respondents indicated increased knowledge of safe patient handling (94%) and applied knowledge of safe patient handling in training (90%). Survey II (n = 6): Most respondents (67%) indicated that they had applied the knowledge and skills that they had learned in the training. Two respondents (33%) indicated that they had not yet had the opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills they learned. The survey also showed that all respondents believed that the knowledge and skills they had learned helped to decrease the risk of personal injury and injury to patients. Safe patient handling and mobility training utilizing simulation with an interprofessional approach was effective in promoting safety of nonmedical and family caregivers in the home setting. Based on the success of this program, more training opportunities should be implemented to improve patient and caregiver safety.

Use and Impact of Simulation in Family Caregiver Education: A Systematic Review

“…Most results were measured by surveys, but some studies used methods to measure confidence in the relevant area after directly observing or performing the skill according to the characteristics of the simulation. 24,27 Knowledge 23,27,28 and depression 21,29 were the most common outcome measurement concepts; in addition, confidence, 23,25 anxiety, 21,29 and well-being 22,28 were included. Pilot test studies also reported outcomes related to the evaluation of interventions, such as usefulness 21,26 and satisfaction with training.…”

“…Pilot test studies also reported outcomes related to the evaluation of interventions, such as usefulness 21,26 and satisfaction with training. 23,29 Some studies used qualitative data to support the effects of interventions. 21,28 For example, each part of the intervention (simulator and group meeting) was useful to family caregivers, but many family caregivers were skeptical that this entire training experience would prepare them better.…”

“…Most studies (6; 66.7%) had quasi-experimental designs. [21][22][23][24][25][26] Four studies used a 1 group pre-test and posttest design, [23][24][25][26] and 3 were pilot studies. 26,27,29 One study used only 1 group to test the interventions, 26 but whereas others used a randomized controlled trial (RCT).…”

“…28 Five studies (55.5%) recruited family caregivers from the community, rather than from hospital settings. [21][22][23]26,28 Two studies enrolled patientcaregiver dyads, 25,27 whereas the remaining studies only targeted family caregivers.…”

“…21,26 Other studies have addressed technical simulations of the needs of specific patients. [23][24][25]27,29 The simulation content included the medical skills necessary for caring for paralyzed patients, 23,24 cancer patients, 29 patients with ventricular assist device (VAD) care skills, 27 and patients requiring clean intermittent urinary catheterization. 25 In research on cancer patient care, 29 researchers used not only technical simulations, but also psychological and communication simulations.…”