Masselink CE, Shuster L, Morgan KA, Hoover DL. Retrospective Chart Review Examining Differences and Timelines in Delivered Wheelchair Equipment in a Midwestern Dedicated Seating Department.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2021;
103:944-951. [PMID:
34861236 DOI:
10.1016/j.apmr.2021.11.002]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2021] [Revised: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 11/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
This study compares recommended wheeled mobility equipment to 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.
DESIGN
Retrospective chart review.
SETTING
Dedicated wheelchair seating department within a Midwestern rehabilitation hospital and associated complex rehabilitation technology durable medical equipment suppliers.
SAMPLE
Wheelchair recommendations (n = 546) made between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017.
INTERVENTIONS
N/A.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Recommended and delivered wheelchair equipment type and length of time between recommendation and delivery.
RESULTS
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 recommended for each year decrease in age (p = ≤.001), although the model lacked sufficient predictive accuracy for clinical application. Average length of time from equipment recommendation to delivery was about 6 months (M = 176 days). Standard and complex power mobility devices were associated with longer timelines (Mdn = 137, 173 days respectively; p = .001); although, only complex power mobility device timelines were significantly associated with public funding sources (p = .02).
CONCLUSIONS
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 further studied. Health care professionals should consistently follow-up on delivered equipment to ensure expectations and needs of the wheelchair user are met. Reducing systemic barriers to interdisciplinary communication post-recommendation may improve patient outcomes.
Collapse