I would love to only address the communication piece (speech generation, email and text messaging), but frequently end up helping with computer access. I have an OT I refer to for the computer access piece, but it really ends up being a collaboration between the SGD vendor, OT and myself, if the patient has an SGD. If not, a collobation between the OT and myself. I feel like computer access is important and feel like knowing the patient's computer needs is an important part of seeing them as a whole person. I just don't understand how it could be very expensive for the SGD companies to create better computers in their devices. The devices are so expensive. Why are great computers so much less expensive than not-so-great computer SGDs? Jen Coggiola, MA, CCC/SLP Speech Pathologist ALS Center at UCSF 400 Parnassus Ave., 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94143 (415) 353-2122 clinic phone (415) 353-2524 clinic fax (925) 323-0175 cell phone xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ________________________________ From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margaret Cotts [xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:38 AM To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: FW: using SGDs vs modifying computers Hi Lisa- I agree with you that clients put too much expectation into the SGD. The one area that I would disagree with you, though, is in the area of email… Email may not be officially recognized as “speech generation”, by Medicare, but for many of our clients, it is one of their most important forms of communication. I do agree with you that it’s not the SLPs job to address the entertainment aspects of the device, but I do feel that email is communication. (The client who I was working with primarily wanted to do email. I think there should be enough RAM on the device in order to run eye gaze AND email.) Margaret Cotts From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lisa L Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:26 AM To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: FW: using SGDs vs modifying computers Hi All, I have to jump in with another opinion. I think that some of our patients put entirely too much expectation on a SGD to be the one and only go to for communication, entertainment, fiscal/home management and the like... I personally do not feel that insurance should be paying for a system that has enough RAM to run every aspect of their daily life. Now, if the family wants to upgrade the RAM to be able to do all of these other add-on features, then I am all for the family having that option. I can say that I am sick of having to go out and provide tech support on a system that was crashed or infected with a virus that then enabled the communication aspect to fail. I don't think it was so bad to have systems that were dedicated for communication. I am a speech pathologist... working to replace the impaired communication system... not to provide an all in one communication, entertainment and personal computer in one system, I am not the IT tech support person. Lisa Bruening On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Edward Hitchcock <xxxxxx@xxxxxxx<mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxx>> wrote: Glad to hear your Hulu is going well. Can I come over and watch Lost tonight with you? :-) Definitely agree that the RAM could be bucked up on general principles, it tends to help almost any computer. As a by the way, Jennifer, the RAM should be upgraded on any of the eyemax devices (to 1GB total). I am almost certain that Dynavox will not let them (Eyemax units) be issued without the RAM upgrade, but may be a good thing to check just in case. Actually, I think all Vmax have 1 GB now, but again, I might just check it. Ed Hitchcock OT/L Technology Center Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Margaret Cotts Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:38 AM To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: using SGDs vs modifying computers I wanted to amend part of what I wrote yesterday... I do think that for clients who have an access method other than eye gaze, it's safer to use to use a conventional computer for browsing the internet, watching TV online, etc. However, people who are using eye gaze as an access method don't have that option. --------------- I have worked with a couple of people who seemed to have problems on their eye gaze system because there just wasn't enough RAM memory. (For example, one person couldn't use the eye gaze and have anti-virus software running at the same time.) -------------- My suggestion- Why don't we (as a group) write a joint letter to the vendor(s), detailing some of the problems we have had? (I'm thinking in particular of the problems with eye gaze systems and RAM memory.) I think a mass letter, signed by multiple SLPs/AT Specialists might have more weight than individual complaints. (Maybe we could ask people from the ASHA AAC SIG to contribute also?) Maybe we could specifically ask for more RAM memory on the eye gaze systems? I could be wrong, but that seems to be the source of some of the problems. Just my two cents, Margaret Cotts P.S. Ed, I have a laptop with lots of RAM memory, and I watch Hulu and streaming videos all the time, pretty much every day without problems... -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Edward Hitchcock Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: using SGDs vs modifying computers But I do think that clients have to be realistic that these devices may not be able to do it all. On the other hand, I occasionally try streaming live TV or even Hulu on my own home computer, which is not absolutely top of the line, but not as slow as a DynaVox either, and the experience of it is spotty at best. So some of this is that the technology is not there yet in any case. Ed Hitchcock OT/L Technology Center Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago This e-mail, and any attachments, is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information, including but not limited to protected health information. If the information contains legally privileged or confidential information, you have an obligation to comply with all laws and regulations regarding its disclosure and safe keeping. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. If you have a concern related to the receipt or disclosure of such information, please do not hesitate to contact RIC's Privacy Officer at 312.238.7066 or xxxxxx@xxxxxxx<mailto:xxxxxx@xxxxxxx>. Thank you.
