Retrospective Chart Review Examining Differences and Timelines in Recommended and Delivered Wheelchair Equipment in a Midwestern Dedicated Seating Department
To compare recommended wheeled mobility equipment with delivered equipment, excluding custom seats and backs, considering demographic factors, such as sex, age, and funding source, as well as the timeline of the procurement process. Retrospective chart review. Dedicated wheelchair seating department...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 2022-05, Vol.103 (5), p.944-951 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 951 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 944 |
container_title | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation |
container_volume | 103 |
creator | Masselink, Cara E. Shuster, Linda Morgan, Kerri A. Hoover, Donald L. |
description | To compare recommended wheeled mobility equipment with delivered equipment, excluding custom seats and backs, considering demographic factors, such as sex, age, and funding source, as well as the timeline of the procurement process.
Retrospective chart review.
Dedicated wheelchair seating department within a Midwestern rehabilitation hospital and associated complex rehabilitation technology durable medical equipment suppliers.
Wheelchair recommendations (N=546) made between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, to physician-referred wheelchair users of all ages and diagnoses.
Not applicable.
Recommended and delivered wheelchair equipment type and length of time between recommendation and delivery.
Differences were found between the recommended and delivered equipment in manual wheelchairs, power mobility devices, seat backs, cushions, and power option equipment groups (P≤.001). Delivered manual wheelchairs were 7% more likely to be different than the recommendation for each year decrease in age (P≤.001), although the model lacked sufficient predictive accuracy for clinical application. The average length of time from equipment recommendation to delivery was about 6 months (mean, 176d). Standard and complex power mobility devices were associated with longer timelines (median, 137d and 173d, respectively; P=.001), although only complex power mobility device timelines were significantly associated with public funding sources (P=.02).
Wheelchair bases, positioning accessories, and power options may be delivered differently than originally recommended, and the process for procuring complex power mobility devices with public funding sources should be studied further. Health care professionals should consistently follow up on delivered equipment to ensure that expectations and needs of the wheelchair user are met. Reducing systemic barriers to interdisciplinary communication postrecommendation may improve patient outcomes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.11.002 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2606925138</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0003999321016038</els_id><sourcerecordid>2606925138</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-d67af1de273063b244b8b420eb264daa60860b76f6f7737ff699a19fc5a563533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi1ERZfCH-CAfOSS4I_ESSQuaLsFpFZIpQhulmOPWa_yVTu7hR_T_8qkWzj2ZI3meV_PzEvIG85yzrh6v8vN1MdcMMFzznPGxDOy4qUUWS34z-dkxRiTWdM08pS8TGmHpSolf0FOZVErLqRakftrmOOYJrBzOABdb02c6TUcAtzRzW_ThyEMv-h58B4iDBYSNYOjN6GHLgxYhQFpO_Y9DA7cQ_McWwekHf2xBejs1oRIN7f7MCE0LwpDr4K7gzRDHBB3wZoZ8W9g5offYMIpFvgVOfGmS_D68T0j3y82N-vP2eXXT1_WHy8zK1k1Z05VxnMHopJMyVYURVu3hWDQClU4YxSrFWsr5ZWvKll5r5rG8Mbb0pRKllKekXdH3ymOt3scTPchWeg6M8C4T1oophpRclkjKo6oxbOlCF5PMfQm_tGc6SUWvdNLLHqJRXOuMRYUvX3037c9uP-Sfzkg8OEIAG6Jx4862bDc24WI0Wg3hqf8_wJzFKEI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2606925138</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Retrospective Chart Review Examining Differences and Timelines in Recommended and Delivered Wheelchair Equipment in a Midwestern Dedicated Seating Department</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Masselink, Cara E. ; Shuster, Linda ; Morgan, Kerri A. ; Hoover, Donald L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Masselink, Cara E. ; Shuster, Linda ; Morgan, Kerri A. ; Hoover, Donald L.</creatorcontrib><description>To compare recommended wheeled mobility equipment with delivered equipment, excluding custom seats and backs, considering demographic factors, such as sex, age, and funding source, as well as the timeline of the procurement process.
Retrospective chart review.
Dedicated wheelchair seating department within a Midwestern rehabilitation hospital and associated complex rehabilitation technology durable medical equipment suppliers.
Wheelchair recommendations (N=546) made between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, to physician-referred wheelchair users of all ages and diagnoses.
Not applicable.
Recommended and delivered wheelchair equipment type and length of time between recommendation and delivery.
Differences were found between the recommended and delivered equipment in manual wheelchairs, power mobility devices, seat backs, cushions, and power option equipment groups (P≤.001). Delivered manual wheelchairs were 7% more likely to be different than the recommendation for each year decrease in age (P≤.001), although the model lacked sufficient predictive accuracy for clinical application. The average length of time from equipment recommendation to delivery was about 6 months (mean, 176d). Standard and complex power mobility devices were associated with longer timelines (median, 137d and 173d, respectively; P=.001), although only complex power mobility device timelines were significantly associated with public funding sources (P=.02).
Wheelchair bases, positioning accessories, and power options may be delivered differently than originally recommended, and the process for procuring complex power mobility devices with public funding sources should be studied further. Health care professionals should consistently follow up on delivered equipment to ensure that expectations and needs of the wheelchair user are met. Reducing systemic barriers to interdisciplinary communication postrecommendation may improve patient outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-9993</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-821X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.11.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34861236</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Durable medical equipment ; Equipment Design ; Humans ; Occupational therapy ; Physical therapy ; Rehabilitation ; Retrospective Studies ; Self-Help Devices ; Time ; Wheelchairs</subject><ispartof>Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2022-05, Vol.103 (5), p.944-951</ispartof><rights>2021 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-d67af1de273063b244b8b420eb264daa60860b76f6f7737ff699a19fc5a563533</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5083-0753</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.11.002$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27922,27923,45993</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34861236$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Masselink, Cara E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shuster, Linda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morgan, Kerri A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoover, Donald L.</creatorcontrib><title>Retrospective Chart Review Examining Differences and Timelines in Recommended and Delivered Wheelchair Equipment in a Midwestern Dedicated Seating Department</title><title>Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation</title><addtitle>Arch Phys Med Rehabil</addtitle><description>To compare recommended wheeled mobility equipment with delivered equipment, excluding custom seats and backs, considering demographic factors, such as sex, age, and funding source, as well as the timeline of the procurement process.
Retrospective chart review.
Dedicated wheelchair seating department within a Midwestern rehabilitation hospital and associated complex rehabilitation technology durable medical equipment suppliers.
Wheelchair recommendations (N=546) made between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, to physician-referred wheelchair users of all ages and diagnoses.
Not applicable.
Recommended and delivered wheelchair equipment type and length of time between recommendation and delivery.
Differences were found between the recommended and delivered equipment in manual wheelchairs, power mobility devices, seat backs, cushions, and power option equipment groups (P≤.001). Delivered manual wheelchairs were 7% more likely to be different than the recommendation for each year decrease in age (P≤.001), although the model lacked sufficient predictive accuracy for clinical application. The average length of time from equipment recommendation to delivery was about 6 months (mean, 176d). Standard and complex power mobility devices were associated with longer timelines (median, 137d and 173d, respectively; P=.001), although only complex power mobility device timelines were significantly associated with public funding sources (P=.02).
Wheelchair bases, positioning accessories, and power options may be delivered differently than originally recommended, and the process for procuring complex power mobility devices with public funding sources should be studied further. Health care professionals should consistently follow up on delivered equipment to ensure that expectations and needs of the wheelchair user are met. Reducing systemic barriers to interdisciplinary communication postrecommendation may improve patient outcomes.</description><subject>Durable medical equipment</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Occupational therapy</subject><subject>Physical therapy</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Self-Help Devices</subject><subject>Time</subject><subject>Wheelchairs</subject><issn>0003-9993</issn><issn>1532-821X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi1ERZfCH-CAfOSS4I_ESSQuaLsFpFZIpQhulmOPWa_yVTu7hR_T_8qkWzj2ZI3meV_PzEvIG85yzrh6v8vN1MdcMMFzznPGxDOy4qUUWS34z-dkxRiTWdM08pS8TGmHpSolf0FOZVErLqRakftrmOOYJrBzOABdb02c6TUcAtzRzW_ThyEMv-h58B4iDBYSNYOjN6GHLgxYhQFpO_Y9DA7cQ_McWwekHf2xBejs1oRIN7f7MCE0LwpDr4K7gzRDHBB3wZoZ8W9g5offYMIpFvgVOfGmS_D68T0j3y82N-vP2eXXT1_WHy8zK1k1Z05VxnMHopJMyVYURVu3hWDQClU4YxSrFWsr5ZWvKll5r5rG8Mbb0pRKllKekXdH3ymOt3scTPchWeg6M8C4T1oophpRclkjKo6oxbOlCF5PMfQm_tGc6SUWvdNLLHqJRXOuMRYUvX3037c9uP-Sfzkg8OEIAG6Jx4862bDc24WI0Wg3hqf8_wJzFKEI</recordid><startdate>202205</startdate><enddate>202205</enddate><creator>Masselink, Cara E.</creator><creator>Shuster, Linda</creator><creator>Morgan, Kerri A.</creator><creator>Hoover, Donald L.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5083-0753</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202205</creationdate><title>Retrospective Chart Review Examining Differences and Timelines in Recommended and Delivered Wheelchair Equipment in a Midwestern Dedicated Seating Department</title><author>Masselink, Cara E. ; Shuster, Linda ; Morgan, Kerri A. ; Hoover, Donald L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-d67af1de273063b244b8b420eb264daa60860b76f6f7737ff699a19fc5a563533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Durable medical equipment</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Occupational therapy</topic><topic>Physical therapy</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Self-Help Devices</topic><topic>Time</topic><topic>Wheelchairs</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Masselink, Cara E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shuster, Linda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morgan, Kerri A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoover, Donald L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Masselink, Cara E.</au><au>Shuster, Linda</au><au>Morgan, Kerri A.</au><au>Hoover, Donald L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Retrospective Chart Review Examining Differences and Timelines in Recommended and Delivered Wheelchair Equipment in a Midwestern Dedicated Seating Department</atitle><jtitle>Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Phys Med Rehabil</addtitle><date>2022-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>103</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>944</spage><epage>951</epage><pages>944-951</pages><issn>0003-9993</issn><eissn>1532-821X</eissn><abstract>To compare recommended wheeled mobility equipment with delivered equipment, excluding custom seats and backs, considering demographic factors, such as sex, age, and funding source, as well as the timeline of the procurement process.
Retrospective chart review.
Dedicated wheelchair seating department within a Midwestern rehabilitation hospital and associated complex rehabilitation technology durable medical equipment suppliers.
Wheelchair recommendations (N=546) made between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, to physician-referred wheelchair users of all ages and diagnoses.
Not applicable.
Recommended and delivered wheelchair equipment type and length of time between recommendation and delivery.
Differences were found between the recommended and delivered equipment in manual wheelchairs, power mobility devices, seat backs, cushions, and power option equipment groups (P≤.001). Delivered manual wheelchairs were 7% more likely to be different than the recommendation for each year decrease in age (P≤.001), although the model lacked sufficient predictive accuracy for clinical application. The average length of time from equipment recommendation to delivery was about 6 months (mean, 176d). Standard and complex power mobility devices were associated with longer timelines (median, 137d and 173d, respectively; P=.001), although only complex power mobility device timelines were significantly associated with public funding sources (P=.02).
Wheelchair bases, positioning accessories, and power options may be delivered differently than originally recommended, and the process for procuring complex power mobility devices with public funding sources should be studied further. Health care professionals should consistently follow up on delivered equipment to ensure that expectations and needs of the wheelchair user are met. Reducing systemic barriers to interdisciplinary communication postrecommendation may improve patient outcomes.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>34861236</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.apmr.2021.11.002</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5083-0753</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-9993 |
ispartof | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2022-05, Vol.103 (5), p.944-951 |
issn | 0003-9993 1532-821X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2606925138 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Durable medical equipment Equipment Design Humans Occupational therapy Physical therapy Rehabilitation Retrospective Studies Self-Help Devices Time Wheelchairs |
title | Retrospective Chart Review Examining Differences and Timelines in Recommended and Delivered Wheelchair Equipment in a Midwestern Dedicated Seating Department |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T13%3A08%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Retrospective%20Chart%20Review%20Examining%20Differences%20and%20Timelines%20in%20Recommended%20and%20Delivered%20Wheelchair%20Equipment%20in%20a%20Midwestern%20Dedicated%20Seating%20Department&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20physical%20medicine%20and%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Masselink,%20Cara%20E.&rft.date=2022-05&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=944&rft.epage=951&rft.pages=944-951&rft.issn=0003-9993&rft.eissn=1532-821X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.11.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2606925138%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2606925138&rft_id=info:pmid/34861236&rft_els_id=S0003999321016038&rfr_iscdi=true |