Article

PURPOSE: To characterise the provision of wheelchair seating both pre- and
post-clinical intervention and compare and contrast the two largest diagnostic
groups. METHOD: The case notes of those attending a wheelchair seating clinic for
adults over a defined period were reviewed retrospectively.
A classification
system was devised that delineates between the complexity and type of equipment
to gain a better understanding of provision. RESULTS: 146 patients were included;
mean age 45 years (SD 16); 53.4% male. The two most prevalent primary medical
diagnoses were cerebral palsy (CP) and multiple sclerosis (MS); 48.6% and 20.5%,
respectively. The MS group, in comparison to the CP group, were significantly
more likely to be older, new to seating provision, have been seen more recently,
have a powered wheelchair, self-propel their manual wheelchair, have low rather
than high complexity equipment and have their equipment changed following
assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The equipment classification system will allow results
from different studies to be readily compared. The results for those with CP and
MS reflect the respective stable and progressive nature of these conditions.
Referrals for those with MS should be prioritised. Wheelchair seating users with
MS should be reassessed approximately 18 months after provision. IMPLICATIONS FOR
REHABILITATION: A detailed classification of wheelchair seating equipment based
on a recognised standard vocabulary, such as the one proposed, is required to
gain a better understanding of provision. Wheelchair seating equipment budget and
staffing levels should reflect the diagnostic make up of a service's patient
population. Referrals for people with MS should be prioritised as their current
wheelchair seating provision is more likely not to be meeting their needs. People
with MS should have a clinical review 18 months after wheelchair seating
provision.

Langue : ANGLAIS