Test e to initial group.

GH

I'm happy to see the RE-PSG listserv up and running, and I hope that the members
may see it as an avenue for exchanging technical expertise, and discussing
technical and professional issues important to our profession and the work that
we do.

In this spirit, I'd like some input regarding the design of, or experience with
retractable foot platforms on a wheelchair power base.  The client in question
is self-pay and money is not a big issue.

The footrest is a platform (client's preference), and in broadest terms, I need
to get it out of her way so she can transfer with feet on the floor.  A PT/rehab
eng./balding guy I know suggested supporting the platform with a dashpot, which
could lower it to the floor as she puts weight on it, and lock into this
position.  After she transfers back in, she could unlock the platform allowing
it to spring back into place.  The chair in question is a Hoverround Technic FWD
(front wheel drv).

I realize this is limited info - it's about all I have at this moment; but I'm
looking for experiential info on creative ways of retracting or moving footrests
out of the way.

Greg McGrew
RE-PSG Chair

I'm assuming that she doesn't have either the strength or coordination to hook
her feet on the footplate and fold it up and down that way (similar to Pride
Jazzy flip-up footplates.)  We have in the past drilled a hole and attached a
rope to the fooplate which the patient can then use to lift the footplate up out
of the way for transfers.  I'm not familiar with the Hoverround footplate
style/design so maybe this wouldn't be an option for you.  Just an idea. 
Sometimes, we are forced to go with the swingaway footrest option if
independence is an issue as some patients find that it's much easier to release
and swingaway this style of footplate than to deal with lifting a plate up and
down.

Thanks.
Scott Draper, MSBE, ATP
Iowa Methodist Medical Center

>>> mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org 08/11/2000 9:33:33 AM >>>
I'm happy to see the RE-PSG listserv up and running, and I hope that the members
may see it as an avenue for exchanging technical expertise, and discussing
technical and professional issues important to our profession and the work that
we do.

In this spirit, I'd like some input regarding the design of, or experience with
retractable foot platforms on a wheelchair power base.  The client in question
is self-pay and money is not a big issue.

The footrest is a platform (client's preference), and in broadest terms, I need
to get it out of her way so she can transfer with feet on the floor.  A PT/rehab
eng./balding guy I know suggested supporting the platform with a dashpot, which
could lower it to the floor as she puts weight on it, and lock into this
position.  After she transfers back in, she could unlock the platform allowing
it to spring back into place.  The chair in question is a Hoverround Technic FWD
(front wheel drv).

I realize this is limited info - it's about all I have at this moment; but I'm
looking for experiential info on creative ways of retracting or moving footrests
out of the way.

Greg McGrew
RE-PSG Chair




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Okay, I'm confused.  Could someone clarify the intended division of usage
between this listserv and the longstanding RESNA listserv
<RESNA@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> listserve?  In the past, the RESNA-PSG list
had been primarily for announcements of interesting new products or
policies.  However, the question that I just saw could just as easily have
been on the RESNA listserv <RESNA@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> list.

Clarification please?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jane Huggins, Ph.D., ATP         "The last days are getting laster."
janeh@umich.edu                               -- Steve Horning
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~janeh  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Greg McGrew wrote:
> Jane, Not having been on the RE-PSG list in its past life, I have
> little knowledge of the original intent of its establishment, or how
> it was actually used.  You mentioned providing info on new products.
> Did such postings occur on the previous list, and did you find them
> helpful?  I know people sometimes use the RESNA list for that purpose
> as well.  As this list is composed solely of RE-PSG members, it
> certainly will be used to convey PSG-related policy, business, and
> project information, but my hope is that it can be used in other
> advantageous ways for the membership.  I was told by someone who had
> been on this list in the past, that in it's hey-day, it saw about a
> posting a month.  If this was the case, then it was probably more of a
> mailing list (not that there's anything wrong with that).  I'm open to

My understand was that it was just a mailling list on David Jaffe's
computer that he used for relevant announcements.  (Probably 2
messages/month at the same time is more accurate ;)

> the idea that, given that which is common among our membership - our
> engineering training - we may find it useful to access the membership
> as a group for help with certain issues related to our practice.
>
> The intent of my design-related posting, in addition to trying to tap
> into similar design experiences, was to explore the notion this list
> might be a tool for RE-PSG members to exchange info with more of an
> engineering or design bent (although my weenie example probably didn't
> convey that).  I would agree that the question I posed could well have
> gone on the RESNA list, and it may yet.
>
> Given your response to the posting, I'd be very interested in your
> thoughts on the use of this newly established list, both as a consumer
> of information, and as a provider.

Unless we have a good policy on why the newly established list exists, I'm
afraid it will do more harm than good.  I think that one thing people like
about the existing list is the ability to get all kinds of information and
tap people with all kinds of backgrounds.  If any given question can go to
either list, then we have created a detrimental redundancy.  I don't have
any clear recollection of a discussion of the purpose of creating the new
list, so I'm trying to establish what the vision for it was.  If the
vision is to create a place where we can discuss technical
engineering/design issues then I think there are several potential
problems.  1)  We could easily miss pre-manufactured solutions to the
problem that we are trying to address, thus costing our patient money,
ourselves time and reinventing the wheel when it didn't need to be done.
2)  We could all check out of the established RESNA list on the theory
that we can get what we need from the RE-PSG list, thus depriving the
RESNA list of our expertise and devaluing one of the most valued RESNA
'products'.

Also, if we try to divide information on the basis of amount of technical
content, I think we will run into a variety of definitions of technical
content.  I just read a question on the RESNA list asking how a radio
shack device could be used to create a switch alternative for a mouse
button.  From the tone of the original question, I thought that the writer
was looking for a 'plug the mouse into this' solution.  The answer that
was given was the (to me) technically simple wiring of an external switch
in parallel with the internal mouse switch.  My guess is that this was a
leap of incredible technical prowess for the writer of the original
message.  So, which list should the original question have gone to, and
which list should the answer have gone to?  Considering the tone of the
original question, should the answer have been 'no, there isn't such a
device'?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but unless we can clearly define the reason
for two lists, then there should only be one list.  Perhaps the RESNA list
should address assistive technology questions and the RE-PSG should
address exam questions-writing, certification issues, RE salary and hiring
practices, setting up mentorships for PE certification and the like.  BUt
I don't see a clear dividing line in the assistive technology question
side....

(On a technical issue:  Is it possible to have the messages in the
digest version of the list combined as attachments?  That makes it much
easier for me to skip messages that I'm not interested in...)



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jane Huggins, Ph.D., ATP       "One of the most dangerous things you'll
                                 ever get is everything you ever wanted."
janeh@umich.edu                      -- Michael P. Morris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~janeh  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Does anyone read any of the other group listservs (i.e., OT)? If so, what is
their policy regarding what messages belong on the PSG listserv and what are
appropriate for a specialty group? In the absence of a written policy, we
may want to consider using someone else's guidelines.

I appreciate Jane's concerns, but I also endorse Greg's efforts to make the

PSG listserv more useful. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind seeing
cross-posts; if someone needs help, I think they should be able to seek it
out wherever they want.

Stan

Stan Cronk, PhD
Senior Specialist and Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee School of Biomedical Engineering
Acting Director, UT Rehabilitation Engineering Program
(901) 448-6479



-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Huggins [mailto:janeh@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 9:36 AM
To: RESNA PSG listserv
Subject: Re: [RESNAre-psg] Clarification of use (fwd)


On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Greg McGrew wrote:
> Jane, Not having been on the RE-PSG list in its past life, I have
> little knowledge of the original intent of its establishment, or how
> it was actually used.  You mentioned providing info on new products.
> Did such postings occur on the previous list, and did you find them
> helpful?  I know people sometimes use the RESNA list for that purpose
> as well.  As this list is composed solely of RE-PSG members, it
> certainly will be used to convey PSG-related policy, business, and
> project information, but my hope is that it can be used in other
> advantageous ways for the membership.  I was told by someone who had
> been on this list in the past, that in it's hey-day, it saw about a
> posting a month.  If this was the case, then it was probably more of a
> mailing list (not that there's anything wrong with that).  I'm open to

My understand was that it was just a mailling list on David Jaffe's
computer that he used for relevant announcements.  (Probably 2
messages/month at the same time is more accurate ;)

> the idea that, given that which is common among our membership - our
> engineering training - we may find it useful to access the membership
> as a group for help with certain issues related to our practice.
>
> The intent of my design-related posting, in addition to trying to tap
> into similar design experiences, was to explore the notion this list
> might be a tool for RE-PSG members to exchange info with more of an
> engineering or design bent (although my weenie example probably didn't
> convey that).  I would agree that the question I posed could well have
> gone on the RESNA list, and it may yet.
>
> Given your response to the posting, I'd be very interested in your
> thoughts on the use of this newly established list, both as a consumer
> of information, and as a provider.

Unless we have a good policy on why the newly established list exists, I'm
afraid it will do more harm than good.  I think that one thing people like
about the existing list is the ability to get all kinds of information and
tap people with all kinds of backgrounds.  If any given question can go to
either list, then we have created a detrimental redundancy.  I don't have
any clear recollection of a discussion of the purpose of creating the new
list, so I'm trying to establish what the vision for it was.  If the
vision is to create a place where we can discuss technical
engineering/design issues then I think there are several potential
problems.  1)  We could easily miss pre-manufactured solutions to the
problem that we are trying to address, thus costing our patient money,
ourselves time and reinventing the wheel when it didn't need to be done.
2)  We could all check out of the established RESNA list on the theory
that we can get what we need from the RE-PSG list, thus depriving the
RESNA list of our expertise and devaluing one of the most valued RESNA
'products'.

Also, if we try to divide information on the basis of amount of technical
content, I think we will run into a variety of definitions of technical
content.  I just read a question on the RESNA list asking how a radio
shack device could be used to create a switch alternative for a mouse
button.  From the tone of the original question, I thought that the writer
was looking for a 'plug the mouse into this' solution.  The answer that
was given was the (to me) technically simple wiring of an external switch
in parallel with the internal mouse switch.  My guess is that this was a
leap of incredible technical prowess for the writer of the original
message.  So, which list should the original question have gone to, and
which list should the answer have gone to?  Considering the tone of the
original question, should the answer have been 'no, there isn't such a
device'?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but unless we can clearly define the reason
for two lists, then there should only be one list.  Perhaps the RESNA list
should address assistive technology questions and the RE-PSG should
address exam questions-writing, certification issues, RE salary and hiring
practices, setting up mentorships for PE certification and the like.  BUt
I don't see a clear dividing line in the assistive technology question
side....

(On a technical issue:  Is it possible to have the messages in the
digest version of the list combined as attachments?  That makes it much
easier for me to skip messages that I'm not interested in...)



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jane Huggins, Ph.D., ATP       "One of the most dangerous things you'll
                                 ever get is everything you ever wanted."
janeh@umich.edu                      -- Michael P. Morris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~janeh  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Just a point of clarification:

SIG-11 has a distribution list that I maintain. It
is a broadcast only list - not a discussion list.
I send out short items of interest from newspapers,
and trade journals in the area of computer applications.

The archives of the distribution list are at:
http://www.resna.org/sigs/sig11/tidbits.htm

Dave Jaffe

I agree with Jane.  To me, the RESNA list is currently the place to go for
technical information regarding clinically related design problems.
Personally, I like the idea of keeping it that way.  I was on the old RE-PSG
list, where discussions were clearly confined to certification, examinations,
licensing issues...and that made sense to me.  I don't see much reason to
change what worked.

Daryle Gardner-Bonneau
JDNBonneau@cs.com

>Does anyone read any of the other group listservs (i.e., OT)? If so, what is
>their policy regarding what messages belong on the PSG listserv and what are
>appropriate for a specialty group? In the absence of a written policy, we
>may want to consider using someone else's guidelines.
>
>I appreciate Jane's concerns, but I also endorse Greg's efforts to make the
>PSG listserv more useful. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind seeing
>cross-posts; if someone needs help, I think they should be able to seek it
>out wherever they want.
>
>Stan
>
>Stan Cronk, PhD
>Senior Specialist and Assistant Professor
>University of Tennessee School of Biomedical Engineering
>Acting Director, UT Rehabilitation Engineering Program
>(901) 448-6479
>



The OT Tech-SIS is for ANYTHING that has anything to do with technology.
Typically, OT's ask each other questions about how to solve a problem (like
Greg did), but it is also used for posting relevant information about
upcoming conferences, and has also been used to discuss people's feelings
about conferences that have already happened.  Sometimes people even let
others know about job openings, news articles of interest, etc.  The only
things it cannot be used for are to advertise new products, personal stuff,
etc.  Also, no spamming.

Personally, I feel that the RE PSG should be used to help others in any way
possible, concerning RE, technology, etc.  If a clinical person has a
question...post it.  If there is a relevant piece of information that will
benefit us all...use it.



Mark and Trudy




Mark I. Bresler MBME, PE, President
Trudy Posner, MS, OTR/L, Director of Product Services
Southwest Assistive Technology Inc.
PO Box 639
West Haverstraw, NY 10993
(888) 388-SWAT                  ***PLEASE NOTE NEW TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBER*****
(914) 947-0377 voice
email: sales@swattech.com
website: http://swattech.com

As a past and recently re-joined member of both listservs, I agree with Jane's
comments as to the potential confusion that could result from cross-posting. 
However, I feel there is a need for RE's and RET's to have a forum for a
discussion of technically-related problem solving issues, fabrication
techniques, home evaluation and accommodation issues, computer accessibility
issues, and, in general, just a discussion of what rehab engineers and RET's do
in their day to day work.  I have found that what I do as a rehab engineer is
vastly different from what other persons do with the same job title.  I'd hate
to see the RE-PSG go back exclusively to the same, but needed, dry discussion of
certification, testing, etc. and would like to see it opened up for more
informal information exchange without other discipline involvement.  Don't get
me wrong, I highly value the team approach.  It's just that we RE's and RET's
often have difficulty establishing ourselves as a unique discipline and we need
a forum to interact in a "like-minded" kind of way.

I would recommend that, for specific design issues such as originally posted by
Greg, that the question simply be double-posted.  Over time, for those of us
that are on both listservs, it should sort itself out as what, if any,
differences in responses are solicited by the two groups.  This may then help to
further define the usefulness of the RE-PSG.

Scott Draper, MSBE, ATP
Rehabilitation Engineer
Bio-Tech Services
Iowa Methodist Medical Center
Des Moines, IA  50309
drapersa@ihs.org

>>> JDNBonneau@cs.com 08/15/2000 9:52:35 PM >>>
I agree with Jane.  To me, the RESNA list is currently the place to go for
technical information regarding clinically related design problems.
Personally, I like the idea of keeping it that way.  I was on the old RE-PSG
list, where discussions were clearly confined to certification, examinations,
licensing issues...and that made sense to me.  I don't see much reason to
change what worked.

Daryle Gardner-Bonneau
JDNBonneau@cs.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

In response to Scott's comments:  "However, I feel there is a need for RE's
and RET's to have a forum for a discussion of technically-related problem
solving issues, fabrication techniques, home evaluation and accommodation
issues, computer accessibility issues, and, in general, just a discussion
of what rehab engineers and RET's do in their day to day work."

There has been plenty of this type of discussion on the general RESNA list
over time with no complaints about it being too technical. The last thing
I'd want to see is dual postings to both lists...my mailbox gets jammed up
enough as it is. I support the idea of using the general list for AT
questions, and the RE list for organizational and profession-related issues.

Ray Grott
San Francisco State University

DITTO TO Ray's comments!!! Dave Law

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Grott [mailto:rgrott@sfsu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:19 AM
To: RESNAre-psg@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [RESNAre-psg] Clarification of use (fwd)


In response to Scott's comments:  "However, I feel there is a need for RE's
and RET's to have a forum for a discussion of technically-related problem
solving issues, fabrication techniques, home evaluation and accommodation
issues, computer accessibility issues, and, in general, just a discussion
of what rehab engineers and RET's do in their day to day work."

There has been plenty of this type of discussion on the general RESNA list
over time with no complaints about it being too technical. The last thing
I'd want to see is dual postings to both lists...my mailbox gets jammed up
enough as it is. I support the idea of using the general list for AT
questions, and the RE list for organizational and profession-related issues.

Ray Grott
San Francisco State University





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Is there a digest version of the RE-PSG list content?  If we're now talking
about people double-posting to the RESNA list and this list (which I really
hate the thought of), I will definitely want to get the digest version of
this one, if it's available.

Daryle

JDNBonneau@cs.com

Daryle,
If you go to the site,

http://www.egroups.com/group/RESNAre-psg

and click on <Subscribe>, you'll see options for changing the way you receive
the postings, including digesting.

Thanks to those who opined concerning possible expanded use of this list.  I do
empathize with those expressing concerns about another RESNA list for AT problem
solving, and suggest that, at least for now, the RE-PSG list serve primarily as
an avenue for communicating PSG related issues and business, as opposed to a
resource for rehabilitation engineering technical input.

Having said this, I want to encourage members who are interested in this type of
resource to join and participate in the RESNA list if you're not currently on
it.  About 2/3 of RE-PSG members are not on the RESNA list.

Regarding concerns about email clutter, you can digest this list's mail, or even
obtain it only through the egroups website.  You can set this up through
http://www.egroups.com/group/RESNAre-psg
and by clicking on <Subscribe>.

Greg McGrew

As many of you are aware, a lack of appropriate exam questions within the time
frame required has prevented RESNA from offering the RE/RET certification exams
at this year's MedTrade.  Still, there's been some talk of trying to hold exams
later in the year for those who could pull together groups of interested test
takers.  This was fueled, in part, by an interest in gaining some financial
return in the same year the investment was made in putting together the exams.

It's now been suggested that, for a number of reasons, it may be better to
concentrate on targeting the International Seating Symposium, Feb. 22-24, for
the first exam offering, with the second offering in June at RESNA - Reno. 
Should this happen, the effect of the delay should be to increase the number of
exam questions from which to choose, potentially enhancing the overall quality
of the exams; and would provide time to properly disseminate information on the
purpose of these exams, their nature, and their structure.

I, personally, favor this approach, but would like to hear from anyone who may
feel otherwise.

In a message dated 08/18/2000 2:35:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org writes:

<< Having said this, I want to encourage members who are interested in this
type of resource to join and participate in the RESNA list if you're not
currently on it.  About 2/3 of RE-PSG members are not on the RESNA list.
   >>
Hi Greg-- it might be good to let folks know how one gets on the RESNA
list... Dianne Goodwin

Scott, I had a case several years back, where I made a simple foot platform
which traversed up/down on bi-lateral 3/4" straight gear racks (simple rack
& climbing pinion).  I think I used 1" gears on a 1/2" jackshaft at the rear
of the footplate (or platform).  The 3/4" gear racks replaced the normal
footplate outriggers, and the jackshaft climbed the racks as it was rotated
by a neat little 12 VDC, 12 RPM Dayton gearmotor (Grainger # 4Z837).
Unfortunately, I can't seem to lay my hands on any of the pictures, but you
should be able to envision it.  If not, let me know & I'll sketch it out for
you.  Hope this helps out.  Dave Law

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Draper [mailto:drapersa@ihs.org]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:09 AM
To: RESNAre-psg@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [RESNAre-psg] Welcome, Rehabilitation Engineering
Professionals


I'm assuming that she doesn't have either the strength or coordination to
hook her feet on the footplate and fold it up and down that way (similar to
Pride Jazzy flip-up footplates.)  We have in the past drilled a hole and
attached a rope to the fooplate which the patient can then use to lift the
footplate up out of the way for transfers.  I'm not familiar with the
Hoverround footplate style/design so maybe this wouldn't be an option for
you.  Just an idea.  Sometimes, we are forced to go with the swingaway
footrest option if independence is an issue as some patients find that it's
much easier to release and swingaway this style of footplate than to deal
with lifting a plate up and down.

Thanks.
Scott Draper, MSBE, ATP
Iowa Methodist Medical Center

>>> mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org 08/11/2000 9:33:33 AM >>>
I'm happy to see the RE-PSG listserv up and running, and I hope that the
members may see it as an avenue for exchanging technical expertise, and
discussing technical and professional issues important to our profession and
the work that we do.

In this spirit, I'd like some input regarding the design of, or experience
with retractable foot platforms on a wheelchair power base.  The client in
question is self-pay and money is not a big issue.

The footrest is a platform (client's preference), and in broadest terms, I
need to get it out of her way so she can transfer with feet on the floor.  A
PT/rehab eng./balding guy I know suggested supporting the platform with a
dashpot, which could lower it to the floor as she puts weight on it, and
lock into this position.  After she transfers back in, she could unlock the
platform allowing it to spring back into place.  The chair in question is a
Hoverround Technic FWD (front wheel drv).

I realize this is limited info - it's about all I have at this moment; but
I'm looking for experiential info on creative ways of retracting or moving
footrests out of the way.

Greg McGrew
RE-PSG Chair




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Thank you, Dianne - sorry for that obvious omission.


  To join the RESNA list, send the message:

SUB RESNA firstname lastname
     (i.e. SUB RESNA Dianne Goodwin)

to  LISTSERVE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU

attached is additional info about the list

>>> <bluskydzin@aol.com> 08/18 3:39 PM >>>
In a message dated 08/18/2000 2:35:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org writes:

<< Having said this, I want to encourage members who are interested in this
type of resource to join and participate in the RESNA list if you're not
currently on it.  About 2/3 of RE-PSG members are not on the RESNA list.
   >>
Hi Greg-- it might be good to let folks know how one gets on the RESNA
list... Dianne Goodwin




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Greg, I concur with your line of thought.  Above all, the focus should be on
a properly constructed exam that will insure the integrity of the
credential.  Ten years from now we'll have long forgot this little timing
glitch.......no big deal.  But if the exam is not up to the quality/quantity
it ought to be, credibility will be damaged, hard to get back, and not soon
forgotten.  Let's keep a long term perspective.

Mike Anderson, ATP
CPRFK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg McGrew [SMTP:mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 2:16 PM
> Subject: [RESNAre-psg] Timing for RE/RET Certification Exams
>
> As many of you are aware, a lack of appropriate exam questions within the
> time frame required has prevented RESNA from offering the RE/RET
> certification exams at this year's MedTrade.  Still, there's been some
> talk of trying to hold exams later in the year for those who could pull
> together groups of interested test takers.  This was fueled, in part, by
> an interest in gaining some financial return in the same year the
> investment was made in putting together the exams.
>
> It's now been suggested that, for a number of reasons, it may be better to
> concentrate on targeting the International Seating Symposium, Feb. 22-24,
> for the first exam offering, with the second offering in June at RESNA -
> Reno.  Should this happen, the effect of the delay should be to increase
> the number of exam questions from which to choose, potentially enhancing
> the overall quality of the exams; and would provide time to properly
> disseminate information on the purpose of these exams, their nature, and
> their structure.
>
> I, personally, favor this approach, but would like to hear from anyone who
> may feel otherwise.
>

If it won't burst the budget, I'd prefer to continue the question drive and
plan for the first offering in June at RESNA.

<<Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:15:39 -0400
    From: "Greg McGrew" <mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org>
Subject: Timing for RE/RET Certification Exams
. . .  it may be better to concentrate on targeting the International Seating
Symposium, Feb. 22-24, for the first exam offering, with the second offering
in June at RESNA - Reno.  Should this happen, the effect of the delay should
be to increase the number of exam questions from which to choose, potentially
enhancing the overall quality of the exams; and would provide time to
properly disseminate information on the purpose of these exams, their nature,
and their structure. . . >>

As a proported member of the RE/RET Test Development Committee, I can
certainly echo Mike's concerns here.  You probably have no idea how much
pressure is being placed on this committee to get this test done!  If we are
NOT careful, we could easily wind up with another truly worthless (as a
measure of "true credibility") certification.  I have always believed that
"haste makes waste", so I would much prefer to take the required time to do
it RIGHT!   The pressure IS on this committee to move quickly.  I would love
a consensus from the rank & file on this issue, as we are scheduled to again
meet in a week or so in D.C., to proceed with question writing, etc.
Dave Law RE-WWRC

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Anderson [mailto:mikea@cprf.org]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 2:35 PM
To: 'RESNAre-psg@egroups.com'
Subject: RE: [RESNAre-psg] Timing for RE/RET Certification Exams


Greg, I concur with your line of thought.  Above all, the focus should be on
a properly constructed exam that will insure the integrity of the
credential.  Ten years from now we'll have long forgot this little timing
glitch.......no big deal.  But if the exam is not up to the quality/quantity
it ought to be, credibility will be damaged, hard to get back, and not soon
forgotten.  Let's keep a long term perspective.

Mike Anderson, ATP
CPRFK

> -----Original Message-----
> From:      Greg McGrew [SMTP:mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org]
> Sent:      Friday, August 18, 2000 2:16 PM
> Subject:      [RESNAre-psg] Timing for RE/RET Certification Exams
>
> As many of you are aware, a lack of appropriate exam questions within the
> time frame required has prevented RESNA from offering the RE/RET
> certification exams at this year's MedTrade.  Still, there's been some
> talk of trying to hold exams later in the year for those who could pull
> together groups of interested test takers.  This was fueled, in part, by
> an interest in gaining some financial return in the same year the
> investment was made in putting together the exams.
>
> It's now been suggested that, for a number of reasons, it may be better to
> concentrate on targeting the International Seating Symposium, Feb. 22-24,
> for the first exam offering, with the second offering in June at RESNA -
> Reno.  Should this happen, the effect of the delay should be to increase
> the number of exam questions from which to choose, potentially enhancing
> the overall quality of the exams; and would provide time to properly
> disseminate information on the purpose of these exams, their nature, and
> their structure.
>
> I, personally, favor this approach, but would like to hear from anyone who
> may feel otherwise.
>

   _____

  <http://click.egroups.com/1/8116/12/_/_/_/966634645/>

<http://adimg.egroups.com/img/8116/12/_/_/_/966634645/ecredit-468-static1.GI
F>

   _____

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Could we discuss in some detail what would be appropriate for exam
questions?  I'm ashamed to admit that I'm one of the people who did not
get their exam questions written and turned in on time.  My primary excuse
to myself was that I really didn't have a good idea of what the exam
questions should be like (well, that and the constant lack of time)...

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jane Huggins, Ph.D., ATP         "If what the gospel says is true, then
                                   it is more important than life itself."
janeh@umich.edu                               -- Tom Trevethan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~janeh  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I believe some clarification would be helpful.  It is my understanding that the
main problem is finding an adequate number of questions for the RET exam which
are differentiable from the questions for the RE and/or ATP exam.  I wonder
whether this is indicative of the case that two levels of certification are not
warranted based on the current state of practice (which I readily admit was my
point of view as we worked to develop RE certification).

Simon P. Levine, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director, Rehabilitation Engineering Program
Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehab.
and Biomedical Engineering
phone:  734 936-7170
fax:   734 936-7515

In a message dated 8/21/00 7:19:14 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
lawdf@wwrc.state.va.us writes:
> The pressure IS on this committee to move quickly.  I would love
>  a consensus from the rank & file on this issue, as we are scheduled to
again
>  meet in a week or so in D.C., to proceed with question writing, etc
----------------

Well Dave,
A committee is composed of ones - you are one. And a consensus is about
compromise, I suppose. Nonetheless, a thing done right the first time is a
thing worth fighting for. On the otherhand, "Take your time, just don't take
too much time - or time will decide for us."
I'm glad it's you, not me!
My position - how widely within the membership have questions been sought?
Are there some uncertifieds (Unclean) who might shed some light on test
querys?

Elden Wick
Rehab Engineer, Southwest Human Development
Ewick@swhd.org, 602-266-5976 x210
Wickee Rehabilitation Engineering
Eewick@aol.com, 602-395-1857
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Lewis Thomas:
      "The cloning of humans is on most of the lists of things to worry about
from Science, along with behaviour control, genetic engineering,
transplanted heads, computer poetry and the unrestrained growth of plastic
flowers."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Will Rogers:
      "The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each
party is worse than the other."

Dave,

Thanks for the info, although Greg McGrew was the one originally posting the
inquiry.  However, I've also had patients who could benefit from a design such
as this.  One question - does this configuration just lift the plate up and down
allowing the patient footplate height control or does the plate flip-up.  What
I'd like is something that lifts the front of the footplate up while keeping the
rear of the footplate stationary (vertically.)  Maybe I'm not visualizing your
design correctly.  Not having a mechanical engineering background, I'm not real
up on gears.

Scott Draper

>>> lawdf@wwrc.state.va.us 08/18/2000 2:48:29 PM >>>
Scott, I had a case several years back, where I made a simple foot platform
which traversed up/down on bi-lateral 3/4" straight gear racks (simple rack
& climbing pinion).  I think I used 1" gears on a 1/2" jackshaft at the rear
of the footplate (or platform).  The 3/4" gear racks replaced the normal
footplate outriggers, and the jackshaft climbed the racks as it was rotated
by a neat little 12 VDC, 12 RPM Dayton gearmotor (Grainger # 4Z837).
Unfortunately, I can't seem to lay my hands on any of the pictures, but you
should be able to envision it.  If not, let me know & I'll sketch it out for
you.  Hope this helps out.  Dave Law

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Draper [mailto:drapersa@ihs.org]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:09 AM
To: RESNAre-psg@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [RESNAre-psg] Welcome, Rehabilitation Engineering
Professionals


I'm assuming that she doesn't have either the strength or coordination to
hook her feet on the footplate and fold it up and down that way (similar to
Pride Jazzy flip-up footplates.)  We have in the past drilled a hole and
attached a rope to the fooplate which the patient can then use to lift the
footplate up out of the way for transfers.  I'm not familiar with the
Hoverround footplate style/design so maybe this wouldn't be an option for
you.  Just an idea.  Sometimes, we are forced to go with the swingaway
footrest option if independence is an issue as some patients find that it's
much easier to release and swingaway this style of footplate than to deal
with lifting a plate up and down.

Thanks.
Scott Draper, MSBE, ATP
Iowa Methodist Medical Center

>>> mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org 08/11/2000 9:33:33 AM >>>
I'm happy to see the RE-PSG listserv up and running, and I hope that the
members may see it as an avenue for exchanging technical expertise, and
discussing technical and professional issues important to our profession and
the work that we do.

In this spirit, I'd like some input regarding the design of, or experience
with retractable foot platforms on a wheelchair power base.  The client in
question is self-pay and money is not a big issue.

The footrest is a platform (client's preference), and in broadest terms, I
need to get it out of her way so she can transfer with feet on the floor.  A
PT/rehab eng./balding guy I know suggested supporting the platform with a
dashpot, which could lower it to the floor as she puts weight on it, and
lock into this position.  After she transfers back in, she could unlock the
platform allowing it to spring back into place.  The chair in question is a
Hoverround Technic FWD (front wheel drv).

I realize this is limited info - it's about all I have at this moment; but
I'm looking for experiential info on creative ways of retracting or moving
footrests out of the way.

Greg McGrew
RE-PSG Chair




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Jane,
While I haven't been part of this process, as I recall and understand, a
committee was put together, and met in early June to develop guidlines for role
delineation of REs and RETs and for deciding on what areas the exams should
focus.  Subsequently, a list of engineers and technologists was selected from
which to solicit exam questions. They were given a packet of info which helped
define differences in the two certification criteria, layed out the areas
questions should cover, and provided info on how to write multiple choice
questions.  At RESNA-Orlando, since there was a tight deadline for developing
the exams prior to MedTrade, a general call also went out to engineers and
others to provide exam questions.  I assume you are one who responded to this.

I've emailed Jeannie Minkel, chair of the Professional Standards Board, in an
effort to obtain more info on the type of questions sought.  Hopefully, we can
get the packet developed for those asked to write, and make it available for
downloading to those interested.

>>> Jane Huggins <janeh@umich.edu> 08/21 10:29 AM >>>
Could we discuss in some detail what would be appropriate for exam
questions?  I'm ashamed to admit that I'm one of the people who did not
get their exam questions written and turned in on time.  My primary excuse
to myself was that I really didn't have a good idea of what the exam
questions should be like (well, that and the constant lack of time)...

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jane Huggins, Ph.D., ATP         "If what the gospel says is true, then
                                   it is more important than life itself."
janeh@umich.edu                               -- Tom Trevethan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~janeh  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

I apologize in advance as I'm guessing that this won't be popular with some of
you and I know a lot of work has gone into this already but, it seems to me that
the distinction between a RE and RET is not so much the applied work technology
but rather the academic background.

Why not have one test to determine the relevant technical knowledge of the
applicant?  For those passing the test but having an engineering degree (4+
year, ABET accredited), an RE designation is earned.  For those passing without
a degree, it's an RET.  I believe that the most important distinction between
the two groups is the 4+ years of problem solving skills and discipline learned
academically, which cannot be tested for.  Therefore, why try to distinguish via
an exam when the academic background has already done the distinguishing?  For
me, and without getting into the PE issue, my college degree has designated me
an "engineer."  RESNA credentialing can only allow me to demonstrate a knowledge
of technical issues related to AT.

The nuances between what constitutes a rehab engineer and a rehab engineering
technician in the "clinical world" are often so overlapping that I believe it
would be unfair to try to discriminate based upon anything other than the
dedication of one group to the college degree.

I'm not trying to be combative but, not having been involved in the decisions
leading up to the RE/RET designation to this point, I would seriously be
interested in hearing the reasoning for the need for two separate tests,
particularly when it appears that there might be confusion over the
appropriateness of test questions distinguishing between the two groups.

Waiting for the backlash and/or info to bring me up to date...

Scott Draper, MSBE, ATP

>>> mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org 08/22/2000 11:18:39 AM >>>
Jane,
While I haven't been part of this process, as I recall and understand, a
committee was put together, and met in early June to develop guidlines for role
delineation of REs and RETs and for deciding on what areas the exams should
focus.  Subsequently, a list of engineers and technologists was selected from
which to solicit exam questions. They were given a packet of info which helped
define differences in the two certification criteria, layed out the areas
questions should cover, and provided info on how to write multiple choice
questions.  At RESNA-Orlando, since there was a tight deadline for developing
the exams prior to MedTrade, a general call also went out to engineers and
others to provide exam questions.  I assume you are one who responded to this.

I've emailed Jeannie Minkel, chair of the Professional Standards Board, in an
effort to obtain more info on the type of questions sought.  Hopefully, we can
get the packet developed for those asked to write, and make it available for
downloading to those interested.

>>> Jane Huggins <janeh@umich.edu> 08/21 10:29 AM >>>
Could we discuss in some detail what would be appropriate for exam
questions?  I'm ashamed to admit that I'm one of the people who did not
get their exam questions written and turned in on time.  My primary excuse
to myself was that I really didn't have a good idea of what the exam
questions should be like (well, that and the constant lack of time)...

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jane Huggins, Ph.D., ATP         "If what the gospel says is true, then
                                   it is more important than life itself."
janeh@umich.edu                               -- Tom Trevethan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~janeh  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com

I agree with Scott on this.

Gary



Gary M. McFadyen, Ph.D.
Senior Rehabilitation Engineer
T. K. Martin Center for Technology and Disability
P. O. Box 9736
Mississippi State, MS 39762