WHEELCHAIR MOBILITY
description
Transcript of WHEELCHAIR MOBILITY
WHEELCHAIR MOBILITY
Malik Ismail Nathan Kong Jenson Lam
Martin LeungTeam 1
AGENDA
1. Definitions
2. Problem Statement
3. Stakeholders
4. Current Solutions
5. The Project
Community:Similarities in
• Interests/opinions/views• Morales, ethics, desires
Share experiencesEmotional attachment
Need:Anything fundamental towards one’s survival and living
a healthy and happy life
Quality of Life:The amalgamation of a good standard of living and a
healthy environment
DEFINITIONS General Definitions
Our community is:Children (ages 0-18) with physical impairments
who require wheelchairs in Toronto
A need isBetter mobility/safety upon changing
elevations/positions regarding use of a wheelchair
One’s quality of life isEase with which children are able to integrate
with society and engage in regular activities without being hindered by their disabilities
DEFINITIONSSpecific Definitions
1% of the Canadian population (2000)
Ontario Assistive Devices Program subsidizes 75% on wheelchairs
Eligible for OADP if one has a physical disability of six months or longer
Manual Wheelchairs range from 25-38 lbs
Power Chairs range from 115-600 lbs
http://mobilitybasics.ca/adp.phphttp://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/adp/http://www.newdisability.com/wheelchairstatistics.htmhttp://www.wheelchairpride.com/2010/07/how-many-wheelchair-users-are-there.html
DETAILS Wheelchair Stats
Mobility and Safety
Public accessibility• Curbs• Stairs• Steep (>5%) inclines
Private accessibility• Changing positions
– Bed– Chairs–Washroom
http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/engagement/accessibility_guidelines.pdf
EXTENT of the Problem
Children with physical disabilities
Hospitals/Rehabilitation centres
Family members
Caregivers
Manufacturershttp://parentingspecialneeds.org/images/article/122.jpghttp://nursinguniforms.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Nurses-love-2.jpg
STAKEHOLDERS People with Interest
Marlene Holder, Sick Kids Mobility Rehabilation
Difficulty over curbsMoving a power wheelchair
From a case study of 95 participants:– 74 injuries were from trips or falls• 58 were not using anti-tippers• 67 were not using seat belts
– 50%+ of active wheelchair users experienced a wheelchair-related accident in the past 3 years
http://journals2.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/show_html.xqy?uri=/00039993/v92i0006/892_warwwbiacwu.xml&school=toronto
DETAILS User experience
Technological attention
Intuitiveness- “Eye Gaze” Wheel Chair- Wii Balance Board
Bluetooth, infrared remote control
PROJECT Current Solutions
Bath railSliding Board
Wide Scope• Age• Dependence on wheelchair• Caregivers• Home, car, public• Type of chair
PROJECT Feasibility
THANK YOU!