Investigating the Model of Community-Based Case Management in the New South Wales Brain Injury Rehabilitation Program: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate a model of community-based case management (CM). SETTING: New South Wales (NSW) Brain Injury Rehabilitation Program (BIRP). PARTICIPANTS: All clinicians (N = 72) providing CM within 14 BIRP community rehabilitation teams. DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter study. MAIN MEASURES: A purpose-designed survey. METHODS: Participants from the 12 adult and 2 pediatric services (8 located in metropolitan areas, 6 in rural areas) completed a 3-part survey investigating their organizational context, clinical approach, and CM interventions. Between-groups analyses explored differences among individual services, as well as differences based on age (adult vs pediatric) and location (metropolitan vs rural). RESULTS: All services provided a direct service model of CM. The underlying principles were uniform across services (more direct than indirect service provision; with more client-related than administrative-related tasks; more holistic than service-led in defining client needs; with decision making equally directed by staff and clients; and undertaking a more comprehensive than minimalist range of tasks). CM interventions included the provision of individual support, family support, advocacy, and community development alongside assessment, monitoring, referral, and liaison tasks. There were little differences in practice based on age or location. CONCLUSION: The NSW BIRP has drawn upon the results to produce a model of service for CM.

Reliability of the care and needs scale for assessing support needs after traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability of the Care and Needs Scale (CANS) for measuring the level and types of support needs of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHOD: Interrater reliability was examined in a cohort of 30 community clients with TBI by comparing CANS ratings completed by 2 occupational therapists (OTs) and a case manager. CANS ratings on the same clients were also completed 1 week later to examine test-retest reliability. Reliability of proxy ratings was investigated in a cohort of 40 community clients with TBI by comparing CANS ratings completed by a clinical researcher, multidisciplinary team, relative, and client. RESULTS: Level of support need as measured by the CANS showed excellent interrater reliability both within and across disciplines: ICC = 0.95 between 2 OTs and ICC = 0.93 and 0.96 between OTs and case manager. Test-retest reliability of the CANS over a 1-week period was also excellent (ICC = 0.98). Although the agreement between the clinical researcher and multidisciplinary team was excellent (ICC = 0.92), ICCs with relative and client ratings were variable, ranging from 0.37 to 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: The excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability findings from this present study, together with the evidence for validity reported previously, indicate that the CANS is a reliable and valid instrument for application in clinical practice.