Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 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:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. 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 lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Potential for new technologies in clinical practice. Current opinions in neurology

So punting the failures and not solving the 100% recovery need. THIS is why we need survivors in charge. 

Potential for new technologies in clinical practice. Current opinions in neurology

Jane H. Burridge and Ann-Marie Hughes
Purpose of review Cost-effective neurorehabilitation is essential owing to financial constraints on healthcare resources. Technologies have the potential to contribute but without strong clinical evidence are unlikely to be widely reimbursed. This review presents evidence of new technologies since 2008 and identifies barriers to translation of technologies into clinical practice. (Solve those barriers, that is actually your job. Or do you expect survivors to be ok with these failures?) Recent findings Technology has not been shown to be superior to intensively matched existing therapies. Research has been undertaken into the development and preliminary clinical testing of novel technologies including robotics, electrical stimulation, constraint induced movement therapy, assistive orthoses, noninvasive brain stimulation, virtual reality and gaming devices. Translation of the research into clinical practice has been impeded by a lack of robust evidence of clinical effectiveness and usability. Underlying mechanisms associated with recovery are beginning to be explored, which may lead to more targeted interventions. Improvements in function have been demonstrated beyond the normal recovery period, but few trials demonstrate lasting effects. Summary Technologies, alone or combined, may offer a cost-effective way to deliver intensive neurorehabilitation therapy in clinical and community environments, and have the potential to empower patients to take more responsibility for their rehabilitation and continue with long-term exercise.(Damn it all. When are doctors going to take responsibility for getting their patients 100% recovered? This blaming the patient needs to stop.)
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, _- Southampton, UK
+espondence to Professor Jane Burridge, PhD, ty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, - ampton SO 17 1BJ, UK - _ -44 23 8059 8885; e-mail: jhb1@soton.ac.uk
- rrent Opinion in Neurology 2010, 23:671-677
conventional therapy In order to make rehabilitation more cost-effective.
Keywords clinical practice, neurorehabilitation, technology, translation, usability
Curr Opin Neurol 23:671-677 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health I Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 1350-7540
 

No comments:

Post a Comment