Sarah F Tyson1, Louisa-Jane Burton2, Alison McGovern3, Sudi Sharifi4. 1. University of Manchester, Stroke and Vascular Research Centre, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester, UK sarah.tyson@manchester.ac.uk. 2. University of Manchester, Stroke and Vascular Research Centre, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Manchester, UK. 3. Greater Manchester, Lancashire and South Cumbria Strategic Clinical Network and Senate, Stroke Rehabilitation Programme, Manchester, UK. 4. University of Salford, Business School, Salford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the service users' (stroke survivors and care-givers) experiences and views of the rehabilitation assessment process. DESIGN: Qualitative data analysis from three focus groups using a content analysis to identify the major themes. SETTING: Participants were recruited from stroke support groups and community rehabilitation services in a large UK city. SUBJECTS: Seventeen community-dwelling stroke survivors who had completed their rehabilitation within the previous year and six care-givers. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: understanding the purpose of the assessment; repetition of assessments; feedback about assessments and progress; format of feedback and barriers to feedback. While all participants reported undergoing assessment, some felt their purpose was not always explained and resented unexplained repetitions of tests. Some participants reported a positive experience, but most wanted more information about their progress and predictions of recovery. They wanted regular, consistent, objective information presented in layman's terms; verbally and in writing. Some carers reported difficulty accessing information particularly as a result of confidentiality policies. While some participants accepted these short-comings, others considered them due to staff's disinterest or ineptitude, which undermined their trust in the team. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke service users require clear information about the purpose of assessments and regular, consistent, objective feedback about their progress using layman's language both verbally and in writing.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the service users' (stroke survivors and care-givers) experiences and views of the rehabilitation assessment process. DESIGN: Qualitative data analysis from three focus groups using a content analysis to identify the major themes. SETTING:Participants were recruited from stroke support groups and community rehabilitation services in a large UK city. SUBJECTS: Seventeen community-dwelling stroke survivors who had completed their rehabilitation within the previous year and six care-givers. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: understanding the purpose of the assessment; repetition of assessments; feedback about assessments and progress; format of feedback and barriers to feedback. While all participants reported undergoing assessment, some felt their purpose was not always explained and resented unexplained repetitions of tests. Some participants reported a positive experience, but most wanted more information about their progress and predictions of recovery. They wanted regular, consistent, objective information presented in layman's terms; verbally and in writing. Some carers reported difficulty accessing information particularly as a result of confidentiality policies. While some participants accepted these short-comings, others considered them due to staff's disinterest or ineptitude, which undermined their trust in the team. CONCLUSIONS:Stroke service users require clear information about the purpose of assessments and regular, consistent, objective feedback about their progress using layman's language both verbally and in writing.
Authors: Inken Padberg; Petra Knispel; Susanne Zöllner; Meike Sieveking; Alice Schneider; Jens Steinbrink; Peter U Heuschmann; Ian Wellwood; Andreas Meisel Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Matthew Gittins; David Lugo-Palacios; Andy Vail; Audrey Bowen; Lizz Paley; Benjamin Bray; Sarah Tyson Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: N Mavaddat; E Sadler; L Lim; K Williams; E Warburton; A L Kinmonth; J Mant; J Burt; C McKevitt Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 3.921