Objective: The purpose of the study was to document the amount and sorts of technical aids prescribed for hemiparetic stroke patients treated within a one-year period in a German rehabilitation centre.
Design: A retrospective study checking the medical records, and sending a questionnaire asking for level of satisfaction with the use of technical aids, frequency of use, punctuality of delivery, and cost coverage to patients after discharge.
Setting: A department of a neurological rehabilitation clinic (Klinik Berlin) in Germany.
Subjects: All stroke patients treated in one year.
Results: The medical records of 466 patients were checked: 194 (42%) of them received at least one technical aid with a mean of 2.1 items per person, totalling ECU 690 per person. These 194 patients were sent questionnaires at home six to ten months after discharge: 121 (62.3%) questionnaires were returned. Ninety-four patients used their technical aids regularly, 19 occasionally and eight had abandoned usage of wheelchairs and orthoses due to improvement in gait ability and/or poor fit. Eighty-five per cent of patients had a satisfaction level of over 50%. Except for lightweight wheelchairs, technical aids were delivered in time according to patients' estimations, and in most cases costs were fully covered by the regular health insurance (some private insurance schemes do not cover the (full) costs of certain technical aids). Compared with other countries, fewer technical aids were prescribed and fewer home visits (n = 23) were conducted.
Conclusion: The data provide useful information for health care planning and support the need for future prescription of technical aids to consider not only the ability of the user, but also the living environment and, where relevant, the ability of carers. In this regard more home visits could probably increase the efficient provision of technical aids and subsequently produce a higher level of satisfaction from the users.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Mann WC, Hurren D., Tomita M.Comparison of assistive device use and needs of home-based older persons with different impairments. Am J Occup Ther1993 ; 47: 980-87.
2.
Mann WC, Hurren D., Tomita M.Assistive devices for home-based older stroke survivors. Top Geriatr Rehabil1995; 10: 75-86.
3.
Geiger CMThe utilisation of assistive devices by patients discharged from an acute rehabilitation setting. Phys Occup Ther Geriatrics1990; 9: 3-25.
4.
Chamberlain M., Thornley G., Wright V.Evaluation of aids and equipment for bath and toilet. Rheumatol Rehabil1978; 17: 187-94.
5.
Haworth R., Hopkins J.Use of aids following total hip replacement. Br J Occup Ther1980; 43: 398-400.
6.
Boldingh EJ, van Pijkeren T., Hermans J.Are ankle-foot braces being worn? Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd1983; 12: 2280-83.
7.
Bynum HS, Rogers JCThe use and effectiveness of assistive devices possessed by patients seen in home care. Occup Ther J Res1987; 7: 181-91.
8.
Coghlan JK, Robinson CE, Newmarch B., Jackson G.Lower extremity bracing in paraplegics - a follow-up study. Paraplegia1980; 18: 25-32.
9.
Milkenberg R. , Reid S.Spinal cord lesions and lower extremity bracing: an overview and follow-up study. Paraplegia1981; 19: 379-85.
10.
Davies PMSteps to follow. Berlin: Springer-Verlag , 1990.
11.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DWFunctional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61-65.
12.
Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Greshan GEThe stroke rehabilitation outcome study. Part I: general description. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1988; 69: 506-509.
13.
Adelman SMThe national survey of stroke. Stroke1981 ; 12 (suppl 1): 69-78.
Chamberlain MA, Thornley G., Wright V.Evaluation of aids and equipment for bath and toilet. Rheumatol Rehabil1978; 17: 187-94.
16.
Chamberlain MA, Thornley G., Stowe J., Wright V.Evaluation of aids and equipment for the bath: II. A possible solution to the problem. Rheumatol Rehabil1981; 20: 38-43.
