Search

The purpose of this paper is to describe non-participation during the outcome measurement step of the wheeled mobility service delivery process (WMSDP) based on the Functional Mobility Assessment (FMA)-Uniform Dataset (UDS) Registry. The WMSDP is a standard framework for the provision of wheeled mobility devices, and several factors influence the client's experience throughout the process. Patient-reported outcomes are one way to measure the client's experience as part of a quality improvement program. A retrospective descriptive study was conducted on the FMA-UDS Registry to measure the response rate during the outcome measurement step of the WMSDP and describe the reasons an individual did not complete the FMA-UDS. The FMA-UDS was examined at two time points: pre-delivery and post-delivery of the wheeled mobility device. As of September 2, 2021, 10,253 cases have been entered into the FMA-UDS Registry. 2,247 cases were no longer participating pre-delivery, and an additional 3,905 cases were no longer participating post-delivery. The most common reasons for non-participation in the FMA-UDS pre-delivery and post-delivery included: equipment not delivered; provider no longer participating in the FMA-UDS; funding issues; no new equipment; client opted out; loss in contact; deceased; returned equipment; and other. The type and frequency of non-participation in the outcome measurement step of the WMSDP is critical to understanding why individuals participate in outcome measures and provides insight into the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of quality improvement programs. The outcome measurement system provides a structured mechanism for consistent communication between the client and the professionals providing the service, thereby identifying issues earlier in the process and mitigating frustration throughout the wheeled mobility service delivery process. The role of a credentialed professional, specifically an Assistive Technology Professional, in the wheeled mobility service delivery process could emphasize the importance of the follow-up and outcome measurement steps, which may increase the consumers' participation rate and demonstrate the effectiveness of devices and services. Clients who no longer participate in the outcome measurement process do not have the sustained support of the interprofessional team, and possess an increased chance that they will not get their mobility needs met through the health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically reviews and reflects on the processes for providing Assistive Technology (AT) services to Persons with Disabilities (PWD) in Bangladesh, India and Nepal. The aim is to investigate the AT service delivery systems in these countries and suggest improvements where weaknesses are identified. We carried out a descriptive qualitative exploratory study in Bangladesh, India and Nepal by conducting key informant interviews with policymakers (5), AT service providers (22) and mobility and hearing related AT service users (21). We used a directed content analysis approach guided by a seven-point AT service delivery process model to thematically analyse the existing processes for AT service delivery, from first contact through to follow-up and maintenance. AT service delivery processes are sub-optimal in all three countries, and improvements are needed. No common AT service delivery process was found, although there are common features. In general, it is easier for PWDs in India and Nepal to access AT than for those in Bangladesh, but all three countries are failing to live up to their commitments to uphold the human rights of PWDs. Although good elements of AT service delivery processes can be identified, the systems in all three countries are fragmented and generally weak. A more holistic approach of looking at the process of AT service delivery, from first contact right through to follow-up and device maintenance, with a single door service delivery system, free of cost at the point of service is recommended in these countries. Although we found significant weaknesses in AT delivery in all three countries, there are some good AT service delivery practices and opportunities for these countries to learn from one another. A systematic and stepwise approach to assessing current AT service delivery processes in the three countries – examining the delivery system as a whole, from initiation to repair and management – can help identify opportunities to improve the process for (prospective) AT users. A more coherent single door system of AT service delivery will increase the quality and efficiency of the fragmented AT service delivery practices in Bangladesh, India and Nepal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]