Development of a service delivery protocol used for remote wheelchair consultation via telerehabilitation

Telemedicine and e-Health

Volumn 14, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 932-938

  Schein, Richard M ^a   Schmeler, Mark R ^a   Brienza, David ^a   Saptono, Andi ^a   Parmanto, Bambang ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Outcome measure tool; Remote wheelchair prescriptions; Service delivery protocol

Indexed keywords

EARTH SCIENCES;

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES; CLINICAL SERVICES; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS; HEALTH INFORMATIONS; MODEL PROGRAMS; OUTCOME MEASURE TOOL; OUTCOME MEASURES; PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS; REHABILITATION SERVICES; REMOTE LOCATIONS; REMOTE WHEELCHAIR PRESCRIPTIONS; REPEATED MEASURES; SERVICE DELIVERIES; SERVICE DELIVERY PROTOCOL; TELE REHABILITATIONS; URBAN AREAS; WHEELED MOBILITIES;

WHEELCHAIRS;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONSULTATION; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REHABILITATION CARE; TELECONSULTATION; WHEELCHAIR;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PHYSICAL THERAPY (SPECIALTY); REMOTE CONSULTATION; WHEELCHAIRS;

EID: 57049152430     PISSN: 15305627     EISSN: 15563669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2008.0010     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Scherer MJ, Lane JP. Assessing consumer profiles of "ideal" assistive technologies in ten categories: An integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Disabil Rehabil 1997;19:528-535.
2. Dudgeon B. Wheelchair selection and training: Teaching and guiding practitioners and consumers. Am J Occup Ther 2000;43:106-108.
3. Russell JH, Hendershot GE, LeClere F, Howie LJ, Adler M. Trends and differential use of assistive technology devices. In: Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics. No. 292. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.
4. Office of Management and Budget. Revised definitions of metropolitan statistical areas, new definitions of metropolitan statistical areas and combined statistical areas, and guidance on uses of the statistical definitions of these areas. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, 2004.
5. Department of Veterans Affairs. 2002. Available at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy03/pdf/bud23.pdf (Last accessed May 26, 2007).
6. New Freedom Initiative Act. 2001. Available at: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa020201b.htm- (Last accessed May 29, 2007).
7. Scherer MJ, Cushman L. Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: A validation study of assistive technology device. Disabil Rehabil 2001;23:387-393.
8. Cooper R, Fitzgerald SG, Boninger ML, Brienza D, Shapcott N, Cooper RA. Telerehabilitation: Expanding access to rehabilitation expertise. IEEE Proc 2001;89:1174-1191.
9. Schmeler MR. Raising the bar. Home Health Care Dealer Provider 2003;15:36-38.
10. Axelson P, Minkel J, Chesney D. A guide to wheelchair selection: How to use the ANSI/RESNA wheelchair standards to buy a wheelchair. Washington, D.C.: Paralyzed Veterans of America, 1994.
11. Randall M, Kilpatrick KE, Pendergast JF, Jones KR, Vogel WB. Differences in patient characteristics between Veterans Administration and community hospitals. Med Care 1987;25:1099-1104.
12. Wollinksky FD, Coe RM, Mosely RR, Homan SM. Veteran's and no veterans' use of health services. Med Care 1985;23:1358-1371.
13. Callas PW, Ricci MA, Caputo MP. Improved rural provider access to continuing medical education through interactive videoconferencing. Telemed J E Health 2000;6:393-399.
14. Bashshur RL. Telemedicine and health care. Telemed J E Health 2002;8:5-12.
15. Winters JM. Telerehabilitation research: Emerging opportunities. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2002;4:287-320.
16. Torsney K. Advantages and disadvantages of telerehabilitation for persons with neurological disabilities. NeuroRehabilitation 2003;18:183- 185.
17. Lemaire ED, Boudrias Y, Greene G. Low-bandwidth, internet-based videoconferencing for physical rehabilitation consultations. J Telemed Telecare 2001:7:82-89.
18. Kinsella A. Home telecare in United States. J Telemed Telecare 1998;4:195-200.
19. Ricker J, Rosenthal M, Garay E, DeLuca J, Germain A, Abraham-Fuchs K. Telerehabilitation needs: A survey of persons with acquired brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2002;17:242-250.
20. Polgar M, Barlow I. Measuring the clinical utility of an assessment: The example of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Paper presented at International Seating Symposium. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia, 2002.
21. Mills T, Holm MB, Schmeler M, Trefler E, Fitzgerald S, Boninger M. The Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) Instrument: Test-retest reliability and cross-validation with consumer goals. Paper presented at the 25th annual RESNA Conference. Minneapolis, MN, 2002.
22. Mills T, Holm MB, Schmeler M, Trefler E, Fitzgerald SG, Boninger M. Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) instrument. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:38-46.
23. Mills T, Holm MB, Schmeler M. Test-retest reliability and cross validation of the Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair Instrument. Assist Technol 2007;19:61-77.
24. Cooper R, Trefler E, Hobson DA. Wheelchairs and seating: Issues and practices. Technology and Disability 1996;5:3-16.
25. Batavia M, Batavia AI, Friedman R. Changing Chairs: Anticipating problems in prescribing wheelchairs. Disabil Rehabil 2001;23:539-548.