IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0312967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of patient-centred outcome measures alongside the personal wheelchair budget process in NHS England: A mixed methods approach to exploring the staff and service user experience of using the WATCh and WATCh-Ad

Author

Listed:
  • Lorna Tuersley
  • Naa Amua Quaye
  • Kalpa Pisavadia
  • Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
  • Nathan Bray

Abstract

Background and objective: Personal wheelchair budgets (PWBs) are offered to everyone in England eligible for a wheelchair provided through the National Health Service (NHS) to support their choice of equipment. The WATCh (Wheelchair outcomes Assessment Tool for Children) and related WATCh-Ad for adults are patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) developed to help individual users express their main outcome needs when obtaining a wheelchair and rate their satisfaction with subsequent outcomes after receiving their equipment. Use was explored in a real-world setting, aiming to produce guidance for use alongside the PWB process. Methods: Three wheelchair service provider organisations across four sites participated. Staff and users completed surveys about their experience of assessments using the WATCh and/or WATCh-Ad. Selected patients were interviewed after receipt of their equipment, and staff were interviewed after experiencing a number of assessments. Thematic analysis was undertaken using the tool, survey and interview data. Results of pre- and post-equipment provision were presented graphically. Results: Information on 75 assessments by 15 staff was obtained. Three-quarters of users or their carers rated the use of the tools in the assessment process as ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’. Staff reported that the WATCh or WATCh-Ad had been considered ‘useful’ in developing individual care plans in around 1 in 3 cases and affected the prescription in 1 in 4 cases. Concerns were expressed about the length of time taken to administer the tools in clinic. However, some staff noted this reduced with more hands-on experience and by providing the tools to users in advance of the appointment. Conclusions: The WATCh and WATCh-Ad PCOMs are suitable for routine use by wheelchair service providers to assist the assessment process. It is recommended that tool materials are provided in advance to users/carers and that staff are allowed time to develop their ways of working with them.

Suggested Citation

  • Lorna Tuersley & Naa Amua Quaye & Kalpa Pisavadia & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Nathan Bray, 2025. "Use of patient-centred outcome measures alongside the personal wheelchair budget process in NHS England: A mixed methods approach to exploring the staff and service user experience of using the WATCh ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-22, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0312967
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312967
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312967&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0312967?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0312967. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.