I am someone who uses many items of community equipment, including a power wheelchair. I like to keep my equipment in good working order. And I am vigilant about doing my physiotherapy exercises and very careful to try and avoid having additional health issues, such as pressure sores.
When I read in the press that NRS Healthcare, a provider of daily living aids and assistive technology products, might go into liquidation, I was full of dread about what that might mean for me. The collapse of such a major provider creates significant uncertainty for people who rely on community equipment, and for the people working in health and social care trying to support them. But these problems are far more deep-rooted and systemic, tied to tricky questions about how community equipment services are organised and how resilient they are when things go wrong.
My standing frame needs servicing every year. The process to get it serviced is challenging. I have to contact the physiotherapist at the Neuro Rehab Centre each time, who then needs to raise an order to the company that holds the contract in my Borough, who then places the order with another company.
I went through this process before it was due for servicing at the beginning of October 2025, only to be told that it was “special”. In other words, not in the catalogue of what could be ordered directly. It was only after my formal complaint that the standing frame was finally serviced at the end of March.
At the same time, I asked for the seat of my shower chair to be replaced. What should have been a straightforward like-for-like replacement became months of waiting, wrong parts and repeat visits. On two occasions, I waited all day for a technician to arrive, only for him to turn up without the seat. Another time, the wrong seat arrived again. I eventually had five visits from an Occupational Therapist trying to sort out what had started as a request for a replacement seat.
Behind all the frustration is something much more important. Why can replacing a piece of essential equipment be so complicated? And what does that mean for somebody having choice and control, and their safety and wellbeing while they are waiting?
I could not risk getting a pressure sore and having no shower chair to go to the toilet. So, I used my savings to buy a spare one. It cost almost £1,000. I needed to be able to sleep at night knowing that I would be safe. Not everyone has the resources to do this.
That is an equity issue. The Social Care Institute for Excellence’s new research, ‘How care inequities shape social care experiences’, shows how long waits, fragmented services, repeated explanations and the need to keep advocating for yourself can build up over time. It also highlights how financial means can affect the amount of agency, choice and control people have.
For me, this is where TLAP’s Making it Real statements become very real indeed. They include: “I can live the life I want and do the things that are important to me as independently as possible” and “I feel safe and am supported to manage risks in a way that matters to me.”
My wheelchair, shower chair and standing frame are part of how I do those things. They are not simply pieces of equipment. They help me live independently, safely and with some control over my life.
What I would like to see is care and support that involves people with lived experience from the beginning, through co-production. This is unfortunately the third time I have needed to speak about my shower seat, and over the years, nothing has changed.
If something breaks in my household, such as a kettle, I can just buy a new one easily. Why not make straightforward replacements of community equipment straightforward, too?
Of course, community equipment is not the same as buying a kettle. Some equipment needs assessment, and the support and adjustments a person requires can change. But surely social care should be able to tell the difference between somebody needing a new assessment and somebody simply needing a replacement for something that is already on their records.
Most importantly, why aren’t the people who actually use community equipment more involved in designing social care?
Co-production should mean people with lived experience working alongside commissioners, care and support workers, and providers from the beginning to agree what good looks like and how to achieve it.
I finally received a new shower chair this month. I have no idea how much this whole episode cost in additional resources within the social care system. For me, it caused so much additional stress and time. There has to be a better way. I do hope these practical and fundamental improvements are noted, and that this time, people who actually use community equipment are involved in making them happen.
