The variety of electronic assistive technology (EAn available for people with physical disabilities is constantly increasing. It includes items such as powered wheelchairs, equipment for communication and environmental control systems. The timely provision of this equipment can enhance the quality of life of users and carers alike. This paper presents the findings of a survey of the experiences of people with physical disabilities who used this equipment. This was part of a project investigating the provision of EAT in two regional health authorities. The survey asked questions covering subjects such as funding sources, referrers, training and maintenance, time delays, the range of equipment used by individuals and the problems encountered obtaining the equipment.The response rate was 54% (135 out of 250 questionnaires were returned). The results showed that the majority of the equipment was used regularly, with many respondents using between three and six items. Sixty per cent of respondents reported a problem with current provision processes. The most common of these were funding issues, information availability, maintenance, training, switches, assessment and delays. The role that all services can play in eliminating these problems is discussed and the importance of cooperation and effective links between services is emphasised.

No abstract

No abstract

ElectroniCasslstlve technology (EAT) -powered wheelchairs, communication equipment and environmental control systems -can greatly improve the user's and carers' quality of life If prescription is timely and appropriate. Despite the benefits that this equipment can bring, the provision of EAT is a highly confused area because different funding agencies with different remits are involved.As part of a larger research project, a survey was carried out to investigate the remit of and the range of equipment supplied through three funding sources within a given geographical area. This paper gives the results of this survey and presents a snapshot of provision, showing the differences that can occur. It was found that a wide range of equipment was available through these agencies but that the variation In provision was great. Provision was affected adversely by differences In eligibility criteria, referral mechanisms and funding management.The paper concludes that professionals working In this field should be aware of the level of services provided by all agencies throughout their areas. Solutions such as the Joint funding of equipment are suggested for users who live In areas with services that have stringent criteria and are hence perhaps denied the Independence that they could achieve.