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.

Showing posts with label return to work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label return to work. Show all posts

Friday, April 4, 2025

Return to Work After Ischemic Stroke in Young Adults: A Multicenter Cohort Study, Systematic Review, and Meta‐Analysis

 And the blame for this problem lies directly on our stroke medical 'professionals' not creating 100% recovery protocols!

Return to Work After Ischemic Stroke in Young Adults: A Multicenter Cohort Study, Systematic Review, and Meta‐Analysis

Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Abstract

    Background

    Ischemic stroke incidence in young adults is increasing globally, with return to work (RTW) a key rehabilitation goal. We aimed to assess the overall proportions of and factors associated with RTW following young adult ischemic stroke.

    Methods and Results

    We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with ischemic stroke aged 18 to 50 years at 2 tertiary hospitals in Singapore from 2020 to 2022. We evaluated associations between patient characteristics and 3‐month RTW status, augmenting these findings with a systematic review and meta‐analysis of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from January 2000 to November 2023. We pooled proportions for RTW and functional recovery (defined as a 90‐day modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2) and meta‐analyzed associations between patient characteristics and RTW using random‐effects models. In this multicenter cohort, 68.8% (249/362) of young patients with ischemic stroke returned to work, while 87.8% (318/362) achieved functional recovery. Multivariable logistic regression showed that patients with large‐artery atherosclerosis pathogenesis, diabetes, higher admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores, and higher 90‐day modified Rankin Scale had significantly lower odds of RTW. The systematic review and meta‐analyses of 1914 patients across 6 cohort studies identified significantly lower odds of RTW in patients with large‐artery atherosclerosis, diabetes, and admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale SCORE >15. The pooled proportion of RTW was 63.2% (984/1574 [95% CI, 56.0–69.9]) and functional recovery 84.7% (719/846 [95% CI, 81.1–87.8]).

    Conclusions

    Patients with large‐artery atherosclerosis, diabetes, and higher admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at baseline are less likely to RTW. While lower 90‐day modified Rankin Scale is significantly associated with RTW, many patients achieving functional recovery do not RTW. Well‐designed cohort studies are warranted to explore this disparity.(Exploring is not needed you BLITHERING IDIOTS! YOU CREATE 100% RECOVERY PROTOCOLS! ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID?)

    Monday, December 2, 2024

    Effectiveness of early vocational rehabilitation versus usual care to support RETurn to work After stroKE: a pragmatic, parallel arm multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial

     The simplest way to get survivors back to work is EXACT 100% RECOVERY PROTOCOLS! And you blithering idiots don't know that! Doesn't anyone in stroke know how to think?

    Effectiveness of early vocational rehabilitation versus usual care to support RETurn to work After stroKE: a pragmatic, parallel arm multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial

    Abstract

    Background

    Return-to-work is a major goal achieved by fewer than 50% stroke survivors. Evidence on how to support return-to-work is lacking.

    Aims

    To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care (UC) (i.e. usual NHS rehabilitation) versus UC alone for helping people return-to-work after stroke.

    Methods

    This pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations, compared ESSVR with UC in 21 NHS stroke services across England and Wales. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years, in work at stroke onset, hospitalised with new stroke and within 12-weeks of stroke. People not intending to return-to-work were excluded. Participants were randomised (5:4) to individually-tailored ESSVR delivered by stroke-specialist occupational-therapists for up to 12-months or usual National Health Service rehabilitation. Primary outcome was self-reported return-to-work for ≥2 hours per week at 12-months. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.

    Results

    Between 1st June-2018, and 7th March-2022, 583 participants (mean age 54.1 years [SD 11.0], 69% male) were randomised to ESSVR (n=324) or UC (n=259). Primary outcome data were available for 454(77.9%) participants. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants returned-to-work at 12-months (165/257[64.2%] ESSVR vs 117/197[59.4%] UC; adjusted odds ratio 1.12 [95%CI 0.8 to 1.87],p=0.3582). There was some indication that older participants and those with more post-stroke impairment were more likely to benefit from ESSVR (interaction p=0.0239 and p=0.0959 respectively).

    Conclusions

    To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a stroke VR intervention ever conducted. We found no evidence that ESSVR conferred any benefits over UC in improving return-to-work rates 12-months post-stroke. Return-to-work (for at least 2 hours per week) rates were higher than in previous studies (64.2% ESSVR versus 59.4% UC) at 12-months and more than double that observed in our feasibility trial (26%). Interpretation of findings was limited by a predominantly mild-moderate sample of participants and the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic impacted the trial, ESSVR and UC delivery, altering the work environment and employer behaviour. These changes influenced our primary outcome and the meaning of work in people’s lives; all pivotal to the context of ESSVR delivery and its mechanisms of action.

    Data access:

    Data available on reasonable request.

    Registration:

    ISRCTN12464275.

    Get full access to this article

    Sunday, November 5, 2023

    A vocational intervention that enhances return to work after severe acquired brain injury: A pragmatic tria

     Why are you working on this? 100% recovery protocols and you don't have to solve this secondary problem. DON'T YOU HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO SEE THAT?

    A vocational intervention that enhances return to work after severe acquired brain injury: A pragmatic trial

    , , , , ,
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2023.101787Get rights and content

    Abstract

    Background

    Following a severe acquired brain injury, individuals often have low return to work rates. The Vocational Intervention Program (VIP), a partnership of Brain Injury Rehabilitation Program community rehabilitation centres with external vocational rehabilitation providers in New South Wales, Australia, was developed to facilitate a return to competitive employment for working-age people.

    Objectives

    To evaluate the efficacy of the VIP partnership model, this intervention was compared to outcomes from a health-based brain injury vocational rehabilitation centre (H-VR) or community brain injury rehabilitation centres (“treatment as usual”; TAU).

    Methods

    A 3-arm non-randomized controlled trial was conducted among the 12 adult rehabilitation centres of the NSW Brain Injury Rehabilitation Program. The VIP arm was delivered by 6 community rehabilitation centres in partnership with 3 external private Vocational Rehabilitation providers. The H-VR arm was delivered by 1 health-based vocational rehabilitation centre and the 5 remaining centres delivered TAU. Competitive employment status (“Yes”/“No”) and clinician ratings of disability and participation were collected pre- and post-intervention, and at 3-month follow-up. Multilevel models were conducted to investigate change over time by treatment arm.

    Results

    In total, 148 individuals with severe brain injury were included in the trial: n = 75 (VIP), n = 33 (H-VR) and n = 40 (TAU). Sixty-five people (of 108, 60%) completed the VR intervention. A significant arm-by-time interaction was found, with higher return to work rates from pre- to post-intervention in VIP and H-VR arms compared to TAU (P = 0.0002). Significant arm-by-time interactions also indicated improved work-related participation and independent living skills from pre- to post-intervention in VIP and H-VR compared to the TAU arm (P < 0.05). These improvements were maintained at 3-month follow-up.

    Conclusions

    The VIP improved return to competitive employment at comparable rates to the specialist H-VR. Larger-scale adoption of the VIP model could provide significant improvements in vocational rehabilition sevices to support people in their return to work following severe brain injury.

    ANZCTR Trial Registry Number

    ACTRN12622000769785


    Thursday, September 7, 2023

    Addressing mood and fatigue in return-to-work programmes after stroke: a systematic review

     So mood and fatigue are poorly addressed in rehab. BUT YOU DID NOTHING TO SOLVE THAT! You're fired!

    Addressing mood and fatigue in return-to-work programmes after stroke: a systematic review

    Nicole Yun Ching Chen1,2 YanHong Dong2,3* Zaylea Zhong Jie Kua1,2
    • 1Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
    • 2Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    • 3Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Introduction: Return-to-work is a key rehabilitation goal for many working aged stroke survivors, promoting an overall improvement of quality of life, social integration, and emotional wellbeing. Conversely, the failure to return-to-work contributes to a loss of identity, lowered self-esteem, social isolation, poorer quality of life and health outcomes. Return-to-work programmes have largely focused on physical and vocational rehabilitation, while neglecting to include mood and fatigue management. This is despite the knowledge that stroke results in changes in physical, cognitive, and emotional functioning, which all impact one’s ability to return to work. The purpose of this systematic review is to conduct a comprehensive and up-to-date search of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of return-to-work programmes after stroke. The focus is especially on examining components of mood and fatigue if they were included, and to also report on the screening tools used to measure mood and fatigue.

    Method: Searches were performed using 7 electronic databases for RCTs published in English from inception to 4 January 2023. A narrative synthesis of intervention design and outcomes was provided.

    Results: The search yielded 5 RCTs that satisfied the selection criteria (n = 626). Three studies included components of mood and fatigue management in the intervention, of which 2 studies found a higher percentage of subjects in the intervention group returning to work compared to those in the control group. The remaining 2 studies which did not include components of mood and fatigue management did not find any significant differences in return-to-work rates between the intervention and control groups. Screening tools to assess mood or fatigue were included in 3 studies.

    Conclusion: Overall, the findings demonstrated that mood and fatigue are poorly addressed in rehabilitation programmes aimed at improving return-to-work after stroke, despite being a significant predictor of return-to-work. There is limited and inconsistent use of mood and fatigue screening tools. The findings were generally able to provide guidance and recommendations in the development of a stroke rehabilitation programme for return-to-work, highlighting the need to include components addressing and measuring psychological support and fatigue management.

    Thursday, March 9, 2023

    The reasons for not returning to work and health-related quality of life among young and middle-aged patients with stroke: A cross-sectional study

    Damn this is easy to explain. Your doctors and therapists have completely failed you by not providing 100% recovery protocols. So do the research on why doctors and therapists fail at their only task of 100% recovery. Don't you dare try to blame failure to recover on the patient!

    The reasons for not returning to work and health-related quality of life among young and middle-aged patients with stroke: A cross-sectional study

    Xi Pan1†, Zhi Wang1†, Lin Yao2 and Lan Xu2*
    • 1Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
    • 2Nursing Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

    Objectives: This study aimed to explore the reasons and influencing factors for non-return to work (non-RTW) within 1 year among young and middle-aged patients with stroke and to assess their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 1 year across different reasons.

    Methods: The study was conducted as a telephone-based cross-sectional survey. Seven hundred eighty-nine young and middle-aged patients with stroke aged between 18 and 54 years for men and 18 and 49 years for women in the electronic medical system were included. Data collection included demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, behavioral habits, history of chronic diseases, work status, reasons for non-RTW, and HRQoL.

    Results: Of 789 patients, 435 (55.1%) (mean [SD] age, 47.7 [7.8] years) did not return to work within 1 year after stroke. Among the patients who did not RTW, 58.9% were unable to work, 9.7% retired early, 11.03% became full-time homemakers or were unemployed, and 20.5% were reluctant to work. The disordered multiclass logistic regression model showed that the factors influencing the reasons for non-RTW included age, gender, education, income, health insurance, diabetes comorbidity, ability to perform activities of daily living, and mobility of the right upper extremity. Furthermore, patients who were unable to work had significantly lower HRQoL compared to those who had RTW, followed by those who retired early.

    Conclusions: More than half did not RTW within 1 year in our study. The results will help inform future research to identify interventions to promote RTW and improve HRQoL for young and middle-aged patients with stroke.

    1. Introduction

    Recent data show that the incidence of stroke is increasing among young and middle-aged people and is highest in Asians compared to that in other ethnic groups (1, 2). According to reports, nearly 40% of patients with stroke are of working age, an age group whose specific social characteristics dictate a higher willingness to return to work (RTW) after a stroke (3). RTW is the primary goal of the rehabilitation process for most working-age patients (4), and it is closely related to the patient's quality of life, physical and mental health, subjective wellbeing, and life satisfaction (5).

    Unfortunately, it can be challenging for stroke sufferers to return to work (6). Several studies have demonstrated that with proper rehabilitation, most young and middle-aged post-stroke survivors can achieve functional independence and high activity levels (1, 7). Nevertheless, the proportion of patients with stroke who do not return to work ranges from 25 to 50% (8–10). Exploring the reasons for non-RTW among young and middle-aged patients with stroke and the associated factors require clinical practice by identifying the types of non-RTW that may occur in different patients and that can be improved through rehabilitation (4, 11, 12). Although previous research has explored the factors impacting non-RTW after stroke, such as gender and advanced age (8–10), most studies have evaluated non-RTW as a whole and cannot differentiate between various non-RTW types and their associated factors. However, some qualitative studies have been conducted to explore the related causes and influencing factors (4, 11), but the researchers' opinions and thoughts may introduce bias in interpreting the results, resulting in a lack of objectivity and the inability to identify relevant influencing factors.

    To the best of our knowledge, no specific study has been conducted that quantitatively describes the reason for non-RTW following stroke, and its associated factors are mainly unclear. In addition, it is uncertain whether the reported reasons for non-RTW are related to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Therefore, the aims of this study were to (1) quantify reasons for non-RTW among young and middle-aged patients with stroke; (2) identify factors predicting different reasons for non-RTW, focusing mainly on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics factors; and (3) investigate the impact of different reasons for non-RTW on HRQoL.

    Tuesday, March 7, 2023

    Factors Predicting Return to Work After Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Follow-up Study

    So you're trying to normalize and justify your failure to get survivors 100% recovered.  100% recovery and return to work is normal. Why the fuck aren't you doing the research to get survivors there?

    Laziness? Incompetence? Or just don't care? No leadership? No strategy? Not my job?

    This is useless. I'd fire you all.

     Factors Predicting Return to Work After Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: A
    Retrospective Follow-up Study

    Original Research
    Factors Predicting Return to Work After
    Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: A
    Retrospective Follow-up Study
    San San Tay, MBBS, MRCP, MMed a ,
    Christine Alejandro Visperas, MD a , Mark M.J. Tan, MD a ,
    Tricia L.T. Chew, MBBS b
    , Xuan Han Koh, MPH a
    a Changi General Hospital, Singapore
    b Internal Medicine, Singhealth Residency, Singapore

    Abstract  

    Objective:  
     
    To determine the proportion of patients who return to work after inpatient
    stroke rehabilitation and to identify demographic, clinical, and functional predictive factors for
    its success.
    Design:  
     
    A retrospective follow-up study of patients with stroke who were premorbidly working
    and had completed inpatient rehabilitation in a large metropolitan hospital between January
    2016 and December 2017. They underwent a telephone interview at 2 years post discharge.
    Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up post discharge.
    Participants: A total of 314 patients with stroke (73.9% male) with mean age of 58.9 at time of
    stroke (N=314).
    Results:  
     
    A total of 46% of 314 participants returned to work. In multivariable logistic regres-
    sion analysis, viewing return to work as important (odds ratio [OR], 11.90; 95% confidence
    interval [CI], 5.15-27.52), absence of language impairment (OR, 9.39; 95% CI, 3.01-29.34),
    ambulation FIM≥5 (supervision to independence level) on discharge (OR, 4.93; 95% CI, 2.44-
    9.98), cognitive FIM on discharge ≥25 (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.19-6.47), employment in premor-
    bid office work (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.26-5.64), and a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)
    score at discharge (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.00) were associated with successful return to
    work.
    Conclusions:  
     
    Viewing return to work as important, absence of language impairments on dis-
    charge, discharge ambulation FIM≥5, discharge cognitive FIM≥25, employment in premorbid office work, and a lower discharge CCI score were positive predictors of successful return to
    work.

    Sunday, April 24, 2022

    Women were less likely to return to work after a severe stroke, new study finds

     Wrong endpoint measured. Return to work is not anywhere close to 100% recovery.  How many of those returnees were fired or had to quit because they couldn't handle the job? Bad research followthru. I blame the mentors and senior researchers for such crapola.  Misleading research since it would have excluded the older retirees not needing to go back to work. Does no one in stroke actually know how to do research?

    Women were less likely to return to work after a severe stroke, new study finds

    Stroke Journal Report

    Research Highlights:

    • A new study in Germany found that after a severe stroke treated with mechanical clot removal, about one third of stroke survivors resumed work three months later.
    • Women were about half as likely to return to work three months after a severe stroke compared to men.
    • The likelihood of returning to work for both men and women after a severe stroke was higher if they were treated with combined mechanical clot removal and clot-busting stroke medications as compared to mechanical clot removal alone.

    Embargoed until 4 a.m. CT/5 a.m. ET Thursday, April 21, 2022

    DALLAS, April 21, 2022 — According to new research, about one third of people who had a large vessel (severe) ischemic stroke, treated with mechanical clot removal, resumed work three months after stroke treatment. However, women were about half as likely to return to work after a severe stroke compared to men, according to the study published today in Stroke, the peer-reviewed, flagship journal of the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

    A stroke due to a blockage in a large blood vessel is an indicator of a severe stroke and the potential for continuing loss of function, which makes it less likely people will return to work. According to the American Heart Association, while ischemic stroke accounts for 87% of strokes in the United States, large vessel occlusions only account for approximately 24% - 46% of ischemic strokes.

    Endovascular therapy (mechanical clot removal) and clot-busting medications are now a standard treatment for select patients with severe stroke. Endovascular therapy involves threading a slim catheter through a vessel in the leg to mechanically remove a clot blocking a brain vessel. In 2018, the American Heart Association stroke treatment guidelines were updated to recommend mechanical clot removal for select stroke patients to improve the odds of functional recovery.

    “Returning to work after a severe stroke is a sign of successful rehabilitation. Resuming pre-stroke levels of daily living and activities is highly associated with a better quality of life,” said Marianne Hahn, M.D., lead study author and a clinician scientist in the department of neurology at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. “In contrast to most return-to-work studies, we included a large cohort of only people treated with mechanical clot removal; they are a subgroup of stroke patients at high risk for severe, persisting deficits.”

    Researchers examined data from the German Stroke Registry - Endovascular Treatment Study Group. The analysis included more than 600 men and women (28% women), ages 18- to 64-years-old who had a large vessel ischemic stroke between 2015 and 2019.

    All study participants were employed prior to their stroke and were treated with mechanical thrombectomy. More than half of the study participants also received intravenous thrombolysis (clot-busting medication).

    Researchers compared the people who returned to work 90 days after being treated with mechanical thrombectomy to those who did not resume work. After accounting for age, sex, health conditions, type and severity of stroke, and treatment characteristics, the analysis found:

    • About one-third of the stroke survivors resumed work three months later.
    • The amount of persistent functional deficits after stroke was the main reason people were not able to return to work.
    • Women were 58% less likely to return to work three months after mechanical thrombectomy compared to men.
    • Individuals who were treated with both mechanical thrombectomy and intravenous thrombolysis were almost twice as likely to return to work compared to the individuals who had undergone mechanical thrombectomy only.

    “After examining the data further, we also found that women in our cohort were younger at the time of their stroke, were more likely to be non-smokers and were more likely to have no existing significant disability when discharged from the hospital compared to the men in our study. Despite having more of these favorable characteristics for return to work, we did not observe a higher re-employment rate among women before considering these differences,” Hahn said.

    The researchers noted further study is needed to explain the discrepancy between men and women re-entering the workforce after a major stroke. More intensive and supportive vocational rehabilitation programs may be valuable to help women return to work.

    “There is more to re-employment after mechanical thrombectomy than functional outcomes,” Hahn said. “Targeted vocational and workplace rehabilitation interventions have been shown to improve rates of return to work. And previous studies have also found that returning to work is associated with increased well-being, self-esteem and life satisfaction.”

    The study authors believe their findings may be transferable to other countries with similar health care and rehabilitation systems. However, confirmation and in-depth analyses of national policies are necessary to explain the observation since there may be differences, such as social services and benefits, which have been shown to influence return to work.

    The study was limited in that the data lacked detailed information about types of jobs and available employment opportunities. The German Stroke Registry does not include social determinants of health, and whether an individual was re-employed at the same job or working full- or part-time. Researchers noted these limitations may help explain and play a role in whether people returned to work after a severe stroke.

    In the U.S., stroke is the fifth leading cause of death and a leading cause of disability, according to the latest data from the American Heart Association. To recognize stroke symptoms requiring immediate medical attention, the American Stroke Association recommends everyone remember the acronym F.A.S.T. for Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 9-1-1.

    Co-authors are Sonja Gröschel, M.D.; Eyad Hayani, M.D.; Marc A. Brockmann, M.D.; Muthuraman Muthuraman, Ph.D.; Klaus Gröschel, M.D.; and Timo Uphaus, M.D. Authors’ disclosures are listed in the manuscript.

    The researchers reported no outside funding sources for this study.

    Studies published in the American Heart Association’s scientific journals are peer-reviewed. The statements and conclusions in each manuscript are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the Association’s policy or position. The Association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. The Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific Association programs and events. The Association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, device manufacturers and health insurance providers and the Association’s overall financial information are available here.

     

    Tuesday, July 13, 2021

    Getting back to work after a stroke

    If this is a problem then your stroke hospital completely failed at getting you 100% recovered.  Which should immediately cause the board of directors to be fired and the whole hospital reconstituted. 

    Similar to schools:Research confirms that there are no documented instances of failing schools turning around without powerful leadership.

    Getting back to work after a stroke

    We aim to provide you with all the information you need to help you think about working after a stroke. Going back to work can be a big change, and planning ahead can help you through the process. We have tips on planning for your return and getting the support you need at work. There's also information on changing career, retirement, and volunteering.  

    We look at your rights at work if you have an illness or disability. We also explain the types of financial and practical support available.

    Work and coronavirus (COVID-19)

    If you're a stroke survivor, you need to take extra care to avoid catching COVID-19. Speak to your employer to find out how they can support you to stay safe in the workplace.

    There’s guidance for safe workplaces on the GOV.UK website.

    If you're eligible for a vaccine, your GP will contact you. Information about the pandemic changes frequently, so check the online information about your local area. For more information and advice on working during the pandemic, you can contact Acas (England, Wales and Scotland) or the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) (Northern Ireland).

    Who's this information for?

    • Anyone who has had a stroke and is thinking about returning to work.
    • Anyone who has a disability or health problem after a stroke, and needs tips on managing at work.
    • Anyone changing jobs or careers after a stroke.

    “I wish I had had this guide straight after my stroke. My employer wasn’t all that supportive and I felt so alone. Having a guide like this would have made me feel like I had options and given me the confidence to ask for support.” 
    Liza-Jane, stroke survivor

     

    Monday, December 14, 2020

    Common challenges in returning to work after brain injury

     Notice there is absolutely nothing for your doctor to do to accomplish return to work.

    Common challenges in returning to work after brain injury

    Occupational Medicine, Volume 70, Issue 8, November 2020, Pages 550–552, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqaa123
    Published:
    11 December 2020

    Returning to work following an acquired brain injury (ABI, e.g. traumatic brain injury, stroke, infection, hypoxia) is a key aim for many survivors and is a marker of return to normality. For their managers and colleagues at work, there is also good will to support this process. The survivor may have played a pivotal role in the company/organization for many years before the injury, their skills are valuable and also many close working relationships and friendships have been developed over the years (many of us spend more time with our work colleagues than our family or other friends). Many employers are committed to supporting disability in the workplace.

    However, this good will can change over time which can be a very confusing experience for all concerned. There are generally five key challenges that are either myths/assumptions held by those supporting survivors back to work. But often these do not hold up over time, or are unspoken ‘elephants in the room’ that challenge all involved.

    The first myth is that a phased return-to-work process after ABI is similar to other health conditions. The degree of post-injury recovery of function in the workplace (i.e. the ability for the employee to resume all of their duties, perform well and be satisfied in their role) is dependent on the type of brain injury, the nature of post-injury physical and cognitive disabilities, but also the interaction of these factors with the unique work environment in each organization and the work role itself.

    Many employers and occupational health providers are used to incrementally increasing hours and responsibilities during a phased return to work. However, recovery and performance after ABI can be impacted by fatigue from mental stimulation and sensory processing issues. As such the incremental stages of a phased return to work may be shaped by increasing the business of the work environment, contact with other employees, including a key element of home working, or implementing a unique schedule of activity and rest. Importantly, reviewing progress through phases of return to work and making decisions regarding increasing demands need to be guided by experts in neurorehabilitation.

    The second common challenge is a myth is that adjustments/supports in the workplace should primarily focus on physical disability. Common adjustments in the workplace for disability may be physically focused such as ergonomic chairs, desks and computer equipment. While these are important, many survivors of ABI find that the more disabling aspects of the environment are noise, lighting, background conversation or how cluttered the workspaces are. Difficulties in processing information quickly and filtering out unwanted information mean that every little thing, object, sign and noise all comes flooding into the mind of a survivor, filling it up and overwhelming them. These needs may have different impacts on the ability to carry out the role, and the adjustments required, depending on if the role is in an office environment, customer-facing, an industrial or construction setting.

    Workspace adjustments and changes to working practices for both the survivor and their colleagues may require unusual steps compared to other health conditions, to allow the survivor to allocate all of their mental resources on the job role itself and optimize their performance and contribution to their organization. Some of these changes are counter-intuitive (such as radically different work hours) and require guidance from rehabilitation professionals.

    The third myth is that once a survivor has been successfully returned to work, the process is complete. This is a common false assumption and links to the previous myth. Indeed, many government-contracted disability employment agencies are organized around returning a survivor to work without adequate follow-up or retention support. Many people think that there is a final point of recovery for survivors and a return-to-work functioning that requires no further support. Someone who has reached an equilibrium of functioning and performance at work may have done so on a foundation of subtle adjustments and work role/environment conditions/support, many of which are delicate and can be easily undermined.

    Like a house of cards, when the initial components of a return to work are put in place and the survivor is doing well for a period of months following this, all actually rest on the delicate balance of needs, conditions and practices that support this success. This fragile balance can be inadvertently disturbed in many ways, the house of cards collapses, and both survivors and employers can be plunged back into a state of crisis, confusion and distress. Changes that disturb the balance can be a physical change in environment (e.g. moving to open-plan office layout, the presence of construction works in the adjacent building), or more commonly work personnel (often a change in a line manager after many successful years can lead to a crisis for the ABI survivor, as their new manager is communicating in a different way or does not have the benefit of accumulated knowledge of supporting ABI in the workplace). A change in the work role itself that may seem to be minor to some may be too drastic a leap for the survivor who is managing cognitive difficulties in memory, attention, or planning/organization.

    Change of any kind can be much harder to manage, adjust to, flexibly respond and update for survivors of ABI. Each new change requires a reconvening of the employment support network to plan, support and ideally anticipate guiding the change process in a way that is minimally disruptive for the survivors.

    The final two challenges are ‘elephants in the room’. The first is the change in social behaviour for many ABI survivors, and the impact on others. Findings from Yeates et al. [1] are in line with other studies showing that the factors that are associated with loss of a job role or demotion post-ABI are not the core ability to do the technical aspects of the job role itself, or difficulties in physical or memory abilities. Instead survivor executive functioning difficulties in planning and organizing [2–4] and empathy/social behaviour [5–10] for survivors are the key predictors.

    These post-injury difficulties can show themselves as not putting things into place that have been verbally agreed, missing deadlines and letting colleagues down. In addition, the job performance may be fine, but during coffee breaks, a survivor may inadvertently make their colleagues feel offended or uncomfortable by saying inappropriate things or invading personal space. Subtle and unspoken rules in the workplace can be easily broken, such as not using a colleague’s mug, or unspoken rules around dress when there is a non-uniform policy. Office politics can be difficult aspect of work to negotiate at the best of times, but for a survivor of ABI, can get out of hand and social transgressions can frequently occur. Sometime, essential strategies used by survivors to manage their time at work can attract negative judgments from others. For example, many survivors use their lunch breaks to leave the office and go somewhere quiet, to manage fatigue. This can often be seen as ‘anti-social’ by others in the workplace.

    From the perspective of the survivor, the responses and actions of colleagues (who are offended or uncomfortable but this is not clear to the survivor) can be confusing and unpredictable, and a source of anxiety, distress and feeling powerless to change the situation. For the line manager/employer these issues can be really hard to manage. Having a conversation about socially embarrassing incidents is much harder than talking about an aspect of the job itself.

    The final elephant in the room is the problematic process of feedback provision. Survivors of ABI who struggle with both cognitive and interpersonal difficulties in the workplace, require feedback from others to manage such difficulties. However, work colleagues may really struggle to do this, worrying about the feelings of the survivors, or struggling to cross a boundary or work hierarchy and give feedback to someone who is/was in an equal or more senior role. As such in the absence of feedback, problems can persist and get to a point of no-return. Deciding who, and how, to provide feedback, can be complicated, and ideally this should be developed with input from ABI employment experts.

    In summary these are five challenges (myths and elephants in the room) that are a continual source of struggle for survivors of ABI, their employers/managers, their colleagues and those who support them.


     

    Saturday, July 25, 2020

    The ReWork-Stroke rehabilitation programme described by use of the TIDieR checklist

    You wouldn't need to work on this secondary issue if you would solve the primary problem of having protocols for 100% recovery. Does no one in stroke understand one damn thing about what needs to be done for stroke recovery? The only goal in stroke is 100% recovery, everything depends on that. Return to work IS NOT A GOAL IN STROKE. And until we drill that into the heads of the stroke medical world stroke will never be solved. 

    I'll simplify it for you in 5 steps:

    Damn it all: stroke is easy; 5 steps.
    1.  Describe the problems exactly. There are tens of thousands of pieces of research already hinting at solutions, just need followup.
    2.  Write thousands of RFPs to researchers/MIT grads to solve those problems.
    3.  Fund them with foundation grants.
    4.  Write stroke rehab protocols based on the research.
    5.  Get the Nobel prize in medicine.  

    The latest misstep here:

    The ReWork-Stroke rehabilitation programme described by use of the TIDieR checklist

    Ulla Johansson a,b ,
    Therese Hellman c ,
    Annika Ost Nilsson  b
    and Gunilla Eriksson a,d

    a Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden;
    b Centre for Research & Development, Uppsala University/Region of G€avleborg, G€avle, Sweden; c Department of Medical Sciences,
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden;
    d Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation
    Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    ABSTRACT

    Background: 
    About half of those that have had stroke in working age return to work (RTW).
    Few rehabilitation programmes exist focussing RTW after stroke.
    Aim:
    To produce a clear replicable description of the ReWork-Stroke rehabilitation programme
    targeting RTW for people of working age who have had stroke.
    Materials and methods: 
    The Template for Intervention Description and Replication 12 item
    checklist was used to describe the ReWork-Stroke programme developed 2013–2014. This paper
    presents the development, rationale and processes in the programme to enable replication and
    provide evidence for implementation.
    Results: 
    Occupational therapists (OTs) skilled in stroke rehabilitation contribute knowledge
    about consequences of stroke and coordinate stakeholders involved. The ReWork-Stroke is person-centred, includes individual plans and generic components, consists of a preparation and a
    work trial phase. During the preparation phase, resources and hindrances for RTW are mapped
    and a plan for work trial is elaborated. During the work trial phase, the intervention is located
    at the workplace. The OT conducts recurrent follow-ups and collaborates with employers/coworkers.
    Conclusions:
    A person-centred programme has advantages in its flexibility to meet different
    needs between people and by this thorough description of ReWork-Stroke, others can replicate
    the programme and its fidelity and evidence can be strengthened.