Objective: To investigate whether active intervention using a compiled checklist for wheelchair check-ups increases user satisfaction and/or decreases accidents, near accidents and pressure sores.
Design: A randomized controlled trial comparing active intervention versus standard intervention for prescribed, manually propelled wheelchairs.
Setting: Patients within primary health care of Bora°s and Bollebygd municipalities, a mixed urban and rural population.
Subjects: Users of manually propelled wheelchairs over 16 years of age.
Interventions: The accident rate, extent of pressure sores, number and extent of repairs, reconditioning, adjustments as well as user satisfaction were measured initially and at one year. In the standard intervention, the user and carer were encouraged to initiate contact when necessary. In the active intervention, an occupational therapist performed a scheduled, thorough check-up of the wheelchair, following a compiled checklist for safety, comfort and positioning, manoeuvrability and transportation.
Results: Of 253 registered wheelchair users, 216 were suitable and randomized. In the active intervention group, 99% (95% confidence interval 96 / 100%) of the inspected wheelchairs required maintenance. The incidence of accidents was unchanged in the standard intervention group, but decreased to ‘no accidents’ in the active intervention group (p / 0.03). User satisfaction was not affected by the active intervention.
Conclusion: Most wheelchair users are unable to determine on their own when adjustments are needed. An active check-up on manually propelled wheelchairs seems to reduce accidents. More information is available at http://www.wheelchair.se
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Smith C, McCreadie M, Unsworth J. Prescribing wheelchairs: the opinions of wheelchair users and their carers. Clin Rehabil1995; 9:74-80.
2.
2 EngströmB. Ergonomics / wheelchairs and positioning.Hässelby: Posturalis, 1993.
3.
3 Zacharokow D. Wheechair posture and pressure sores. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1984.
4.
4 Hobson DA. Comparative effects of posture on pressure and shear at the body-seat interface. J Rehabil Res Dev1992; 29:21-31.
5.
5 Noble PC. The prevention of pressure sores in persons with spinal cord injuries. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund, 1981.
6.
6 Ummat S, Kirby LR. Nonfatal wheelchair-related accidents reported to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1994; 73: 163-167.
7.
7 Kirby LR, Ackroyd-Stolarz SA. Wheelchair safety / adverse reports to the United States Food and Drug Administration. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1995; 74: 308-312.
8.
8 Dudley N J. Wheelchair-related accidents. Clin Rehabil1992; 6: 189-194.
9.
9 Gaal RP, Rebholtz N. Wheelchair rider injuries: causes and consequences for wheelchair design and selection. J Rehabil Res Dev1997; 34:58-72.
10.
10 Young JB, Belfiel PW, Mascie-Taylor BH, Mulley GP. The neglected hospital Wheelchair. BMJ1985; 291: 1388-1389.
11.
11 Cutter NC, Blake DJ. Wheelchairs and seating systems: clinical applications. Phys Med Rehabil State Art Rev1997; 11:107-132.
12.
12 Jelier P, Turner-Smith. A. Review of wheelchair services in England. Br J Occup Ther1997; 60: 150-155.
13.
13 Glickman L, Hubbard M, Liveright T, Valciukas JA. Fall-off in reporting life events: effects of life change, desirability, and anticipation. Behav Med1990; 16:31-38.
14.
14 Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain1983; 16:87-101.
15.
15 Sugai K, Yasumura S, Fujita M, Imuta H, Ihara K. [Global life satisfaction and its related factors in community elderly residents]. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi1996; 43: 374-389.
16.
16 Samuelsson K, Larsson H, Thyberg M, Gerdle B. Wheelchair seating intervention. Results from a client-centred approach. Disabil Rehabil2001; 23: 677-682.
17.
17 White E, Lemmer B. Effectiveness in wheelchair service provision. Br J Occup Ther1998; 61: 301-305.
