Author Response

We would like to thank Dewey for his interest in our study and in safe patient handling (SPH).¹ We agree with Dewey that our study may not represent the views of the majority of practicing acute care physical therapists, and this is cited as a limitation of our study.² Dewey does recognize that the intent of our study was to elicit subjective data from acute care physical therapists and offers some very good recommendations for quantitative data that could be used to determine the effectiveness of using SPH equipment and practices. We suggest in our discussion that legislative mandates might not be the reason facilities choose to implement SPH programs.² In addition to the influence of quasi-regulatory organizations, a major driving force that appears to support the implementation of SPH programs is the potential savings that can result from a reduction of health care provider injuries. The implementation of SPH programs has been shown to decrease the incidence and severity of worker compensation claims for employee handling injuries.^3,4

Dewey proposes further investigation into the effects of the use of SPH equipment and practices on patient function and mobility. Campo et al⁵ identified that patients can potentially benefit from using SPH equipment and practices by experiencing better functional outcomes. It is our opinion there will be a paradigm shift in research toward the discovery of new ways of using SPH equipment and practices to improve patient outcomes. Physical therapist involvement in research investigating the effects of using SPH equipment and practices on patient outcomes would be consistent with the American Physical Therapy Association's vision of physical therapists as leaders in the development, implementation, refinement, and maintenance of SPH programs.⁶

Finally, Dewey raises the question of whether the use of SPH equipment and practices during physical therapy interventions can be considered skilled and reimbursable. When health care providers, including rehabilitation professionals, chose to use SPH equipment and practices to accomplish a mobility task, we believe that the provider should determine if patient participation could be facilitated by the use of SPH equipment and practices. Body-weight-supported locomotor training uses an overhead harness system that reduces the physical requirements needed to maintain the patient in an upright position, allowing the rehabilitation professionals to focus on improving movement quality for longer periods of time. Likewise, the majority of physical therapist respondents in our study reported using SPH equipment such as ceiling and sit-to-stand lifts to enhance their interventions.² Darragh et al⁷ identified that using SPH equipment and practices reduces rehabilitation therapist fatigue, allowing earlier and more frequent patient mobilization for longer periods of time in patients with lower functioning. It is our firm belief that physical therapy interventions using SPH equipment and practices are “skilled” and reimbursable. Additionally, we are unaware of any denials for the reimbursement of physical therapy services because of the use of SPH equipment and practices.

• © 2014 American Physical Therapy Association