NSMAEP Review Tools | HandicapSkater.org

Start a review

Complete the tools in protocol order.

Use the form that fits the review. These tools operationalize the proposed NSMAEP framework. They are not government forms and do not replace an institution’s legal obligations or existing accommodation procedures. For current-law and guidance parallels, see Law & Guidance. See a motivating case.

Privacy: The review tools run locally in your browser. HandicapSkater.org does not receive the information entered into these forms.

STAGE 1 · PROPOSED STANDARD

Functional Intake

Use first to describe the requested mobility function. Diagnosis, ICD code, medical history, and physician certification are not requested.

STAGE 2 · PROPOSED STANDARD

Device / Adaptation Profile

Describe function and operating characteristics without assuming a wheel, motor, battery, handlebar, or seat.

STAGE 3 · PROPOSED STANDARD

Proficiency Review

A demonstration should be proportionate to the actual setting and identified risk. It is not a mandatory obstacle course.

STAGE 4 · PROPOSED STANDARD

Functional Evidence Record

Record any combination of proportionate evidence. Advanced instrumentation is optional. WHOOP, Polar, Kubios, Strava, FSI, CSS, or equivalent technology is not required to request or complete an NSMAEP review.

STAGE 5 · PROPOSED STANDARD

Environment Review

Evaluate only factors relevant to the actual setting. Mark a factor not applicable when it does not apply.

STAGE 6 · PROPOSED STANDARD

Actual-Risk Worksheet

Record specific, setting-specific hazards and visible uncertainty. Qualitative values are not a mathematical risk score.

STAGE 7 · PROPOSED STANDARD

Mitigation Worksheet

NARROWEST EFFECTIVE CONDITION is a PROPOSED STANDARD, not universal law. Optional prompts: pedestrian-speed operation, restricted zone, narrowly defined dismount point, escort, alternate boarding, storage procedure, security procedure, designated path, or justified time/place condition.

STAGE 8 · PROPOSED STANDARD

Decision Record

Document the scope and reasons for the institutional decision. An acknowledgement, if used, does not waive legal rights.

Decision Quality Check (completeness check; does not determine legal validity) Did the review identify the requested mobility function? Was the actual environment evaluated? Were specific hazards identified rather than relying on category/appearance? Was user proficiency considered where relevant? Was proportionate evidence considered? Was mitigation considered before categorical exclusion? Is the final scope clear? Are reassessment triggers stated?

InstitutionReviewerDecision dateRequested mobility functionAid/adaptationEnvironment/scope evaluatedEvidence consideredIdentified risksMitigation considered

Decision Approved Approved with conditions More information needed Denied

Conditions/restrictionsSpecific reasonsResidual risk if applicable (optional)Scope of decisionEffective period if applicable (optional)Reassessment triggersInternal review/contact route if available (optional)Reviewer signature/name fieldApplicant/user acknowledgement field (institution choice only; does not waive legal rights)

PROPOSED VOLUNTARY RECORD · PMR

Portable Non-Standard Mobility Aid Record

Public label: Portable Mobility Record. Short: PMR.

PROPOSED VOLUNTARY RECORDNOT A PERMITNOT A UNIVERSAL AUTHORIZATIONNOT A PREREQUISITE FOR ACCOMMODATION

GOOD-PRACTICE TOOL

Reassessment Record

Do not restart the entire review when only a bounded fact changed.