COMPARISON OF MUSCULOSKELETAL STRESS ON LUMBAR, SHOULDER, AND WRIST JOINTS WHILE MAKING A BED USING INSTANT TUCK (R) PAD VERSUS OTHER BED-MAKING TOOLS

ARMIA ABDO; HANI AL-NAKHLI

doi:10.22159/ijms.2020.v8i2.37101

Authors

ARMIA ABDO AZA Health and Wellness Inc., Anaheim, California, US.
HANI AL-NAKHLI Madinah General Hospital Complex, Saudi Arabia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ijms.2020.v8i2.37101

Keywords:

Core Muscles, Low Back, Low Back Injury, Low Back Pain, Shoulder, Shoulder Injury, Shoulder Pain, Wrist, Wrist Injury, Wrist Pain, Muscle Force, Force Gauge, Stress, Threshold, BedMadeEZ, Bed Tucker, ErgoTuck, INSTANT TUCK (R) Mat

Abstract

Objective: Currently, there are multiple bed-making tools utilized by consumers and businesses with the intention of increasing safety and reducing time to make a bed. In this study, we will compare musculoskeletal stress, time, and preference of making a bed using the INSTANT TUCK (R) pad versus three other bed-making tools and making a bed without any bed-making tool.

Methods: A sample of ten subjects performed the task of making a queen size mattress bed with one bottom fitted sheet and one top flat sheet, using the INSTANT TUCK (R) pad versus three other bed-making tools, and making a bed without any bed-making tool, in a random order. Time to make the bed, forces on the low back, shoulders and wrist, and the number of times each individual bent forward were measured during each trial. In addition, subjective preferences were measured using a simple questionnaire.

Results: Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the differences between the five different procedures. There were significant differences for all the measured variables. Regarding the time needed to make one bed, the INSTANT TUCK (R) pad had the least time range (80.6 s±4.3), which was approximately 40 s less than making the bed with no tool (p<0.001). Furthermore, for the overall lumbar spine impulse force, the INSTANT TUCK (R) pad had the largest overall reduction in this category (90.6%). Regarding the subjective data, the INSTANT TUCK (R) pad had an overall rating of 9.4 out of 10, compared to the other tools with ratings of 5.9, 5.1, and 3.4 out of 10, which was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Making beds on a regular basis poses risk of injury, especially for those who are required to perform this for their occupation. However, using assistive tools for bed-making, could minimize, and prevent injuries and overload to the lower back, and other parts of the body, making the bed-making task safer. Based on our findings, the INSTANT TUCK (R) pad was by far the most efficient and safest tool to assist in making beds, with the lowest possible risk of injury when compared to all the other tools tested.

References

Krause N, Scherzer T, Rugulies R. Physical workload, work intensification, and prevalence of pain in low wage workers: Results from a participatory research project with hotel room cleaners in Las Vegas. Am J Ind Med 2005;48:326-37.

Buchanan R, Kaufman A, Kung-Tran L, Miller EA. Genetic analysis of yeast Sec24p mutants suggests cargo binding is not co-operative during ER export. Traffic 2010;11:1034-43.

Streit JM. Understanding and Improving Hotel Housekeeper Safety and Health: A Series of NIOSH Research Studies. In: Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. 2015. p. 7-8.

Utterback DF, Schnorr TM. Use of Workers’ Compensation Data for Occupational Safety and Health. United States: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2013.

Meyers A, Wurzelbacher S, Bertke S, Lampl M, Robins D, Bell J.Using Workers Compensation Data for Surveillance of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, Ohio, 2005-2009. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH; 2009.

Cornell University Ergonomics; 2019. Available from: http://www. ergo.human.cornell.edu/dea3250flipbook/dea3250notes/lifting.html.