Deans' stroke musings

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!Just think of all the trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 493 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
My back ground story is here:http://oc1dean.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-background-story_8.html

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Co-constructing engagement in stroke rehabilitation: a qualitative study exploring how practitioner engagement can influence patient engagement

How can practitioners be engaged in their patients stroke recovery when they know damn well that only 10% get to full recovery and they don't have any protocols with efficacy ratings to give their patients?
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269215517694678
First Published February 1, 2017 research-article




To explore how practitioner engagement and disengagement occurred, and how these may influence patient care and engagement.

A qualitative study using the Voice Centred Relational Methodology. Data included interviews, focus groups and observations.

Inpatient and community stroke rehabilitation services.

Eleven people experiencing communication disability after stroke and 42 rehabilitation practitioners.

Not applicable.

The practitioner’s engagement was important in patient engagement and service delivery. When patients considered practitioners were engaged, this helped engagement. When they considered practitioners were not engaged, their engagement was negatively affected. Practitioners considered their engagement was important but complex. It influenced how they worked and how they perceived the patient. Disengagement was taboo. It arose when not feeling confident, when not positively impacting outcomes, or when having an emotional response to a patient or interaction. Each party’s engagement influenced the other, suggesting it was co-constructed.

Practitioner engagement influenced patient engagement in stroke rehabilitation. Practitioner disengagement was reported by most practitioners but was often a source of shame.

No comments:

Post a Comment