| Course | APS-4000 Occupational Safety and Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Final project part 5: final project report |
| Length | About 994 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | B.S. in Medical Imaging |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for APS 4000 Module 6
No More Lifting by Hand: A Safe Patient Handling Program for a Hospital Imaging Department
Student Name
B.S. in Medical Imaging, Thomas Edison State University
APS-4000: Occupational Safety and Health
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
No More Lifting by Hand: A Safe Patient Handling Program for a Hospital Imaging Department
Introduction
Radiologic technologists move patients many times a day: off stretchers onto CT and x-ray tables, into position for images and onto image receptors for portable radiographs. Many patients cannot help, because of injury, sedation or age. In our department of 42 technologists, five lost-time injuries last year came from these tasks, costing 147 lost workdays and about $96,000 in workers' compensation and replacement staffing. This report examines why these injuries occur and how they can be prevented.
The Problem and Its Evidence
Injury reports showed that all five injuries were to the back or shoulder and occurred during lateral transfers or repositioning of dependent patients. A survey of the 42 technologists, with 37 responding, found that 23 reported back, neck or shoulder pain in the past year that they related to work, and 19 said they had lifted a patient alone in the past week because no one else was available. The department has slide boards but no powered lift equipment, and it is not included in the hospital's safe patient handling program, which focuses on nursing units.
Literature Review
Musculoskeletal discomfort is common in the profession. Kumar et al. (2004) surveyed x-ray technologists and found high rates of discomfort, especially in the low back, shoulders and neck, and strong associations between perceived physical stress in tasks such as patient transfers and that discomfort.
Waters (2007) used NIOSH's lifting formula for patient care and arrived at about 35 pounds of patient weight as the safe ceiling for a manual lift in the best case, lower when patients cannot cooperate, when caregivers must reach or twist or when the lift is repeated. Most dependent adult patients exceed that limit in any manual transfer.
Nelson et al. (2006) evaluated a program in twenty-three high-risk units that combined lifting equipment, patient assessment and algorithms for choosing safe methods, peer safety leaders, after-action reviews and a no-strenuous-lifting policy. Injury rates, modified duty days and lost workdays fell after implementation, and the investment was recovered through lower injury costs within a few years. The study supports programs built on equipment and policy rather than training in lifting technique, which earlier research had found ineffective alone.
Asfahl and Rieske (2019) place engineering controls above administrative controls and personal protective equipment, which matches the research: removing the manual lift works better than teaching people to lift.
Analysis
The analysis applies three lenses. First, task load: lateral transfers of dependent adults in our department routinely require moving more than 35 pounds per person even with two technologists. Second, the hierarchy of controls: our current controls are administrative, asking a second person to help, and are often skipped when staff are short. Third, the law: the state's patient handling statute obliges hospitals to run programs that size up handling needs, supply equipment and train staff, under the Safe Patient Handling Act set out in the Module 2 brief. Our department's exclusion from the hospital program is a compliance gap as well as a safety problem.
Recommendations
| Control level | Recommendation | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | Air-assisted lateral transfer mattresses for all CT, x-ray and fluoroscopy rooms | $18,000 |
| Engineering | Ceiling lifts in the two busiest CT rooms | $34,000 |
| Engineering | Height-adjustable stretchers for portable imaging | $12,000 |
| Administrative | Mobility assessment of each patient before transfer, using a simple scale shared with nursing | Staff time |
| Administrative | Policy of no manual lifting of dependent patients; transfers with equipment and at least two staff | Staff time |
| Administrative | Two technologist peer leaders trained in equipment and assessment | $2,000 |
| Organizational | Imaging added to the hospital's safe patient handling committee and program | None |
Stakeholders
Technologists will use the equipment daily and must help choose it; two technologist representatives will test transfer mattresses from two vendors before purchase. Nursing staff who bring patients to imaging will learn the department's mobility assessment so patients arrive with the right information and equipment. The hospital's safe patient handling committee will add imaging to its program and its annual report, and facilities staff will install the ceiling lifts during weekend downtime to avoid closing CT rooms. Finance will track the program's costs and the injury costs it saves, so the payback can be confirmed.
Anticipated Barriers
The most likely barrier is time pressure: in a busy emergency department, staff may skip the equipment to save a minute. Peer leaders will watch for this in the first months, and the director will make clear that a slower safe transfer is always acceptable. Equipment that is not where it is needed will also be skipped, so a mattress will be stored in each room rather than in a central closet.
Finally, technologists' families and the community benefit when experienced staff stay healthy and in the profession, a point worth making when the program is presented.
Implementation
The program will roll out over six months: committee membership and policy in month one, equipment purchase and installation in months two to four, training on equipment for all technologists in months three and four, and full policy enforcement from month five. Peer leaders will coach colleagues during the first weeks and report problems with equipment availability.
Evaluation
Success will be measured over two years against the baseline: lost-time patient handling injuries, lost workdays, workers' compensation costs, technologists' reported musculoskeletal pain in an annual survey and the share of transfers done with equipment, observed monthly. With equipment costs of about $66,000, preventing two lost-time injuries a year would recover the investment in under two years, consistent with the cost recovery Nelson and colleagues reported.
Conclusion
Technologists in imaging get hurt because they move patients by hand past safe limits, because controls lean on people rather than equipment and because the hospital program has left the department out. Research and the hierarchy of controls point to the same answer: provide equipment, assess patients and stop lifting dependent patients by hand. Doing so protects technologists, meets state law and pays for itself.
References
Asfahl, C. R., & Rieske, D. W. (2019). Industrial safety and health management (7th ed.). Pearson.
Kumar, S., Moro, L., & Narayan, Y. (2004). Perceived physical stress at work and musculoskeletal discomfort in X-ray technologists. Ergonomics, 47(2), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130310001617958
Nelson, A., Matz, M., Chen, F., Siddharthan, K., Lloyd, J., & Fragala, G. (2006). Development and evaluation of a multifaceted ergonomics program to prevent injuries associated with patient handling tasks. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(6), 717-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.09.004
Waters, T. R. (2007). When is it safe to manually lift a patient? American Journal of Nursing, 107(8), 53-58. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000282296.18688.b1
What the APS 4000 Module 6 instructions ask for
The APS-4000 semester project investigates a safety and health issue in your own line of work in six parts, and the final report, Part 5, is due with Module 6, Protection and Prevention; the presentation follows in Module 7. The project is graded on the correctness of your analysis, grammar and syntax, and the seriousness and professionalism of the work, using the Final Project Rubric. Present the problem with evidence, review the literature, analyze the problem with the course's concepts and tools, recommend controls with costs, and plan implementation and evaluation. Build on the parts you submitted earlier. Include costs and a way to measure results. Present the problem with local data before the literature. Plan for stakeholders.
Inside the APS 4000 Module 6 example
The report opens with the problem in figures: five lost-time injuries, 147 lost workdays and about $96,000 in costs. A survey adds pain reports and solo lifting. The literature review moves from Kumar and colleagues' findings on discomfort among x-ray technologists to Waters's lifting limit and Nelson and colleagues' evaluated program. A margin note explains that sequence. The analysis applies task load, the hierarchy of controls and New Jersey's Safe Patient Handling Act. A seven-row table lists controls with costs, followed by a six-month implementation plan, evaluation measures with a cost recovery estimate and a conclusion. Sections on stakeholders and barriers explain how the program would actually be adopted. A cost table prices each control.
Reading the APS 4000 Module 6 grading rubric
The final report is graded on correct analysis of the chosen problem, use of the literature and course tools, practical recommendations, grammar and syntax and the professionalism of the work. Reports that document the problem with local data, review peer-reviewed research and apply the hierarchy of controls show the analysis the rubric rewards. Including applicable law shows thoroughness. Recommendations with costs, an implementation timeline and measures show a plan an employer could adopt. Mentors also credit evaluation plans that measure both injuries and how often equipment is actually used. Plans that address the people who will use the equipment show realism. Naming barriers shows realism.
APS 4000 Module 6 help from the desk
Reports slip when the problem has no numbers, the review is a string of summaries, the fix is training alone or costs and evaluation are absent. Use your workplace's injury and exposure data, organize the literature toward a solution, apply the hierarchy of controls and any relevant law, price your recommendations and say how success will be measured. A free first draft of your APS-4000 final report can be built on the problem you chose. Measure whether people use the equipment, not only whether injuries fall, since an unused lift prevents nothing. Address the barriers that could keep people from using the solution.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More APS 4000 and B.S. in Medical Imaging sample papers
- APS 4000 Module 1: Research Exercise: The Safety and Health Manager's Role in a Hospital Imaging Department
- APS 4000 Module 2: Research Exercise: Which Rules Govern Safety in a New Jersey Hospital Imaging Department?
- APS 4000 Module 3: Research Exercise: Applying the Hierarchy of Controls to Patient Handling in Imaging
- APS 4000 Module 4: Research Exercise: Imaging's Part in a Hospital Mass Casualty Plan
- APS 4000 Module 5: Research Exercise: Controlling Scatter Radiation in a New Interventional Suite
- APS 4000 Module 7: Project Presentation: Ergonomics and a Safe Patient Handling Program for Imaging
APS 4000 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free APS 4000 Module 6 sample paper?
The final report above designs a safe patient handling program for a hospital imaging department.
What is the APS-4000 final project?
A six-part project investigating a safety and health problem in your own work, with a final report in Module 6 and a presentation in Module 7.
Are radiologic technologists at risk of back injuries?
Yes; Kumar and colleagues found high rates of musculoskeletal discomfort among x-ray technologists linked to tasks such as patient transfers.
Does training in lifting technique prevent injuries?
Research suggests training alone is not effective; programs combining equipment, assessment and policy reduce injuries.
What does New Jersey's Safe Patient Handling Act require?
Covered health care facilities must establish safe patient handling programs that address equipment, assessment and training.