For many Australians living with disability or age-related challenges, assistive devices represent more than just equipment—they’re potential pathways to independence, safety, and dignity. Yet the gap between purchasing a device and successfully using it long-term often comes down to one critical step: proper trialling. Without adequate testing in real-world environments, research consistently shows that many people stop using their assistive technology after purchase, leaving expensive equipment abandoned and goals unmet. Understanding what the trialling process looks like can mean the difference between a device that transforms daily life and one that gathers dust in a spare room.
Why Is Trialling Assistive Devices So Important?
Trialling assistive devices serves as the cornerstone of successful assistive technology implementation. When individuals test equipment before committing to a purchase, they can evaluate whether the device genuinely addresses their needs in the environments where they’ll actually use it.
The significance of proper trialling cannot be overstated. Assistive technology refers to any device or system that allows an individual to perform a task they would otherwise be unable to do, or increases the ease and safety with which tasks can be performed. This encompasses everything from simple adaptive cutlery costing under $50 to complex powered wheelchairs exceeding $50,000.
Without adequate trialling, device abandonment becomes a real problem. Studies demonstrate that individuals who access formal assessment and trialling have significantly higher long-term usage rates compared to those who purchase equipment without professional guidance. The trial period allows people to discover whether the equipment is comfortable, whether they can operate it safely, whether it fits within their physical environment, and whether it genuinely improves their functional abilities.
For NDIS participants in Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania, trialling forms part of the structured five-step assistive technology assessment process. However, even for aged care recipients and private clients, testing equipment before purchase protects against costly mistakes and ensures the device will deliver the intended benefits.
What Happens During the Initial Assessment Phase?
The journey of trialling assistive devices typically begins with a comprehensive assessment conducted by an occupational therapist. This initial phase establishes the foundation for all subsequent decisions about equipment selection and trialling.
During the assessment, the occupational therapist works collaboratively with the individual to identify their specific needs, goals, and challenges. This process includes reviewing functional abilities through observation of daily activities, evaluating the home environment for accessibility considerations, and discussing personal aspirations and participation goals.
The assessment typically lasts one to two hours, though complex situations may require multiple appointments. Key aspects examined include medical history relevant to equipment needs, current barriers to performing valued activities, the physical layout and constraints of living spaces, and the support network available to assist with equipment use.
This phase is not merely about identifying what equipment might help—it’s about understanding the whole person within their unique context. An occupational therapist considers factors such as cognitive abilities, physical capabilities, environmental constraints, financial resources, and the individual’s readiness to adopt new technology. Only with this comprehensive picture can appropriate equipment be identified for trialling.
How Does the In-Home Trialling Process Work?
In-home trials represent the gold standard for trialling assistive devices because they allow individuals to test equipment in their actual living environment where they’ll use it daily. This approach addresses several critical factors that cannot be replicated in showroom settings.
When trialling assistive devices at home, individuals can assess environmental compatibility in real terms. Physical space constraints such as doorway widths, floor levels, and tight corners become immediately apparent. Lighting conditions, the relationship with existing furniture, and safety considerations specific to the home environment all receive practical evaluation.
The functional testing that occurs during in-home trials proves invaluable. Individuals perform actual daily tasks with the equipment rather than simulated activities. They can determine whether the device truly reduces the need for support worker hours or caregiver assistance. Issues with comfort, usability, and any barriers to use emerge naturally during this real-world testing period.
Best practice in-home trials involve the individual’s support network. Primary carers, family members who may assist with equipment, support workers who provide ongoing care, and other health professionals involved in the individual’s care should ideally participate in trial appointments. This ensures everyone understands how to use the equipment safely and can provide informed input about its suitability.
Trial durations vary depending on equipment complexity. Standard trial periods typically span two to three weeks for most equipment. Pressure care equipment may require three to four weeks for proper assessment, as skin integrity changes take time to observe. Complex systems with multiple components may necessitate even longer trial periods to fully evaluate functionality.
What Documentation and Evidence Is Required?
The level of documentation required when trialling assistive devices depends on the cost and complexity of the equipment, particularly for NDIS participants. Understanding these requirements helps streamline the approval process and ensures funding bodies have sufficient evidence to make informed decisions.
The NDIS categorises assistive technology into three cost tiers, each with different documentation requirements:
| Cost Category | Price Range | Documentation Required | Example Equipment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-Cost AT | Under $1,500 | Letter of support; brief description of need | Adaptive cutlery, dressing aids, non-slip mats, basic toilet aids |
| Mid-Cost AT | $1,500–$15,000 | AT Advice Summary; evidence of trial; cost estimate | Manual wheelchairs, mobility scooters, transfer aids, electronic beds |
| High-Cost AT | Over $15,000 | Comprehensive AT Assessment Report; detailed trial results; supplier quotes | Powered wheelchairs, ceiling track hoists, complex home modifications |
For low-cost items under $1,500, no formal assessment or quote is typically required from the NDIS, though consultation with an occupational therapist remains advisable to ensure appropriate selection. These everyday items are considered safe to operate and require minimal professional advice.
Mid-cost items between $1,500 and $15,000 require written evidence from a qualified assistive technology advisor. If the item isn’t classified as high-risk and appropriate evidence exists, the NDIS will automatically approve funding without requiring a formal quote initially.
High-cost items exceeding $15,000 demand comprehensive documentation. The AT Assessment Report must include participant background and disability information, current challenges and functional limitations, detailed assessment findings, trial results and evidence of effectiveness, comparison of options considered during trialling, justification for the recommended item, training and support requirements, and quotes from verified suppliers.
Throughout the trialling process, occupational therapists document observations about equipment performance, record the individual’s feedback and preferences, compare multiple options if several are trialled, note any modifications or adjustments needed, and compile evidence demonstrating alignment with NDIS “reasonable and necessary” criteria.
What Role Do Occupational Therapists Play in Equipment Trials?
Occupational therapists serve as the professional coordinators and guides throughout the trialling assistive devices process. Their involvement extends far beyond simply arranging equipment loans—they apply clinical reasoning and evidence-informed judgment to match technology with individual needs.
During the trial coordination phase, occupational therapists arrange trial equipment with suppliers, schedule appointments in appropriate settings, and provide professional demonstration and guidance. They observe how individuals interact with equipment, assess for safety, comfort, and usability concerns, and monitor for any issues during the trial period.
The occupational therapist’s professional reasoning considers multiple dimensions. They evaluate ethical principles including respect for autonomy, beneficence (doing good), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and justice in access. They assess whether the assistive technology is genuinely fit-for-purpose—does it actually solve the identified problem? Cost-effectiveness comes under scrutiny: is this the most appropriate solution within available budget constraints? Long-term suitability receives careful consideration: will the technology remain suitable as the individual’s condition evolves?
For individuals in Brisbane, North Lakes, Sydney, Melbourne, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast areas including Peregian Springs, Noosa, Buderim, and Gympie, occupational therapists with Astrad Allied Health coordinate in-home trials across these regions. For those in more remote areas of Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania, telehealth appointments can supplement in-person trial coordination.
The occupational therapist’s documentation provides the essential evidence for funding approval. Their professional observations, combined with the individual’s subjective experience during trials, create a comprehensive picture that funding bodies require to make informed decisions.
What Alternatives Exist If In-Home Trials Aren’t Possible?
While in-home trialling of assistive devices represents best practice, practical circumstances sometimes necessitate alternative approaches. Several options exist for individuals unable to conduct home-based trials.
Independent Living Centre showrooms provide recognised best-practice alternatives. These centres offer trials of hundreds of assistive technology products without conflicts of interest, as they don’t sell the equipment they demonstrate. Professional staff provide guidance on various options, and individuals can access multiple brands for comparison within a single visit.
Some individuals conduct trials at supplier premises, testing equipment directly at provider offices. While less ideal than home trials because the environment differs from where equipment will be used, this approach still offers hands-on experience with devices before purchase.
Mobile trial services are emerging across regional and rural areas of Australia. Allied health professionals travel with trial products to conduct assessments and demonstrations in clients’ homes. This proves particularly valuable in areas without local showroom access, such as more remote parts of the Sunshine Coast, areas around Gympie, and communities beyond the major metropolitan centres of Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne.
Trial-to-buy arrangements offer another pathway. Many suppliers provide new equipment from inventory during trial periods. If satisfied, the individual purchases that specific item, with the trial period serving as proof of suitability for funding approval. Return policies allow for adjustments if the equipment doesn’t meet needs.
For those accessing telehealth occupational therapy services across Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania, therapists can coordinate trials remotely by arranging equipment delivery, providing virtual guidance on setup and use, reviewing photo or video documentation of trial periods, and conducting follow-up assessments via telehealth to evaluate outcomes.
What Factors Determine Trial Success or Equipment Abandonment?
Understanding the factors that influence whether trialling assistive devices leads to successful long-term use helps individuals and therapists optimise the trial process. Research consistently demonstrates that poor matching of assistive technology to individual needs results in device abandonment—people simply stop using equipment that doesn’t suit them.
Several pre-purchase factors significantly impact outcomes. Professional assessment dramatically improves success rates, with individuals who access formal evaluation having significantly higher long-term usage compared to self-selection. Adequate trialling in real environments before purchase proves essential. Personal involvement matters greatly—individuals should actively participate in selection rather than passively receiving recommendations. Support system readiness requires key support people to understand and approve equipment choices.
Post-purchase factors equally influence continued use. Comprehensive training ensures users and support people receive adequate instruction on safe operation. Follow-up support through regular contact allows troubleshooting of problems and addresses emerging concerns. Sometimes environmental adjustments become necessary to support effective assistive technology use. Established systems for maintenance and repairs prevent equipment breakdowns from leading to abandonment.
Common barriers that lead to abandonment include lack of understanding about equipment function, concern that required skills exceed capabilities, fear that technology will replace valued human contact, inadequate training on proper use, environmental barriers preventing effective operation, uncomfortable or unsafe equipment design, and ongoing cost and maintenance issues for those without comprehensive funding coverage.
For NDIS participants, the structured trial process helps mitigate many of these barriers. For aged care recipients under the Support at Home program, access to up to $15,000 lifetime budget for assistive technology and home modifications includes funding for trials, assessment, and wrap-around services including delivery, installation, and follow-up support.
Moving Forward with Confidence
The process of trialling assistive devices represents an investment of time and coordination that pays substantial dividends through improved equipment matching, reduced abandonment rates, and enhanced functional outcomes. When individuals test equipment in their actual living environments with professional guidance, they can make informed decisions about significant purchases that genuinely support their goals.
For Australians navigating disability or age-related challenges, understanding what the trialling process looks like demystifies assistive technology procurement and empowers informed decision-making. Whether accessing NDIS funding, aged care programs, or private resources, the principles of thorough assessment, adequate trialling duration, environmental compatibility testing, and professional support remain constant.
The Australian assistive device market continues expanding, with valuations reaching $720.4 million in 2023 and projections of $1,730.9 million by 2030. This growth reflects increasing recognition of assistive technology’s role in supporting independence and quality of life. However, significant equity gaps persist—while NDIS participants receive average funding of $2,500 per person annually for assistive technology, aged care recipients receive only $51 per person annually, a fifty-fold difference that significantly impacts trial access for older Australians.
As technology advances and funding programs evolve, the fundamental importance of proper trialling remains unchanged. Equipment that sits unused helps no one, while appropriately selected and tested assistive technology can transform daily experiences, enhance safety, reduce caregiver burden, and support meaningful participation in valued activities.
How long does the assistive device trialling process typically take from start to finish?
The complete process from initial assessment to equipment delivery typically spans six to twelve weeks for standard assistive devices, though this timeline varies considerably based on equipment complexity and funding approval processes. The initial occupational therapy assessment usually occurs within one to two weeks of referral, with trial periods ranging from two to four weeks, and high-cost items requiring additional time for quote reviews and funding approval.
Can I trial multiple types of assistive devices before deciding which one to purchase?
Yes, trialling multiple options is not only possible but often recommended as best practice. Occupational therapists frequently arrange comparative trials of different equipment models to ensure the final selection is the best match for individual needs. However, sequential trials can extend the overall timeframe, so therapists typically narrow options based on initial assessments before trialling the most promising devices.
What happens if the assistive device doesn’t work well during the trial period?
If the equipment proves unsuitable during the trial, this provides valuable feedback rather than signaling failure. The occupational therapist documents issues such as discomfort, operational difficulties, environmental incompatibility, or a failure to meet functional goals. This information is used to explore alternative solutions, modify the trial setup, or adjust training methods, and in many cases, trial-to-buy arrangements allow returns without financial loss.
Do I need an occupational therapist for trialling low-cost assistive devices under $1,500?
While NDIS rules don’t mandate a formal assessment for low-cost items under $1,500, consulting an occupational therapist is highly advisable. Therapists can ensure proper selection, advise on sizing and fit, recommend complementary equipment, and potentially prevent the purchase of unsuitable items, thereby saving money and enhancing safety and effectiveness.
Are assistive device trials available through telehealth appointments?
Telehealth appointments can support certain aspects of the trialling process, such as initial assessments, equipment setup guidance, and follow-up consultations. However, hands-on demonstrations and precise adjustments typically require in-person visits, especially for complex equipment. Hybrid models combining telehealth with occasional in-person sessions are common in remote areas.
