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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 2022-05, Vol.103 (5), p.944-951
Hauptverfasser: Masselink, Cara E., Shuster, Linda, Morgan, Kerri A., Hoover, Donald L.
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