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!