Often people use the term ‘evidence based practice’, which at a glance sounds reasonable as a strategy for deciding what to do. Unfortunately once you do some digging you soon discover that not all the research has been done yet, and quite simply there are some studies that will never be done. For example there has never been 1 single randomised controlled trial into the effectiveness of parachutes, but thousands of people still jump out of planes.
Also, people often try to link cause and effect in studies, such as the age old question does manual handling training reduce injuries? Well it depends on the cause of the injuries I suppose. If we follow conventional thinking that injuries caused through lifting, carrying an moving objects, animals or people around can develop over years to decades (such as ‘nurses back’) then it stands to reason that the follow-up period would need to be as long, not just 6 or 12 months. but who is doing this research anyway. Well in a number of cases, it might be an Honours, Masters or PhD candidate under supervision of someone in industry or a university. How long is an Honours, Masters or PhD course? 1 to 4 years usually. So do those investigating manual handling injuries extend their project to take cause of injury into account? No. Follow-up periods are usually 6 to 12 months, to allow time to write the study up and submit it for review and publication. Remembering that the cause of injuries is often very complex and multi-factorial, you can quickly see how useless these studies will be in determining anything useful.
It’s also worth noting that manual handling training and injuries is probably too far apart in relation to cause and effect. Suggesting that manual handling training isn’t effective in reducing injuries, therefore manual handling training is a waste of time is like suggesting pilots shouldn’t do any practical flying lessons, just read the 737 manual and you’ll be right! Now I know that the skill of the pilot isn’t the only cause of plane crashes (mechanical failure, overloaded, weather conditions, runway condition, running out of fuel, poor visibility and many others I’m sure), but it must be pretty important I’m guessing. Even when planes these days “practically fly themselves” all the passengers want to know that the pilot is good at controlling the aircraft.
In a commercial setting, businesses don’t care about furthering the body of evidence into reducing injuries, they just want to reduce them. Compounding this are all of the morons out there justifying whatever it is they are peddling, by staying statements like “there is no evidence to support that (insert intervention) is effective at reducing injuries”. They usually fail to add there is no evidence to suggest that it doesn’t reduce injuries, but that is because they fail to grasp the true meaning of evidence based practice.
So the next time someone tries to tell you what does and doesn’t reduce injuries, don’t just take their word for it and don’t rely on a goggle search for research in the field, because it may be a little more complex.
safe manual handling 