RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The risk of delaying assistive technology (AT) prescription and implementation has significant implications on the safety and quality of life of people with Motor Neurone Disease (PwMND). This study aims to explore the barriers and enablers of AT prescription and implementation identified by PwMND and clinicians. METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured focus groups with clinicians and in-depth interviews with PwMND. Sixteen clinicians and ten PwMND were recruited. Thematic analysis was completed and results were compared and discussed to reach an agreement on the final themes. RESULTS: Three main factors were identified - PwMND, Clinician and Extrapersonal. For PwMND, personal characteristics, such as mindset, was the strongest enabler and inability to accept diagnosis and AT was the key barrier. For Clinician, communication approach was both the most identified enabler and barrier. For Extrapersonal, the availability of interactive education of AT was the strongest enabler and long wait time was a significant barrier. CONCLUSION: Our study identified themes that clinicians could have an impact on, such as, providing interactive education, engaging PwMND and their support network, and ongoing upskilling of clinicians working in this field. Themes identified that were beyond the control of clinicians were personal characteristics, acceptance and support networks. It highlights the importance for clinicians to be flexible with their communication approach to accommodate the needs of PwMND in the acceptance of AT.
There are many factors that may influence a person with Motor Neurone Disease's decision about Assistive Technology (AT) and not all are within the control of clinicians.It is important for clinicians to be reflective of the situation and barriers they encounter, and recognise their limits and what they can act on.For clinicians looking after people with Motor Neurone Disease (PwMND), it is important to develop your knowledge continuously, consider setting up an AT library, and engage PwMND and their support network in care decision making.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To determine whether English proficiency and/or the frequency of interpreter use impacts on health outcomes for inpatient stroke rehabilitation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: People admitted for inpatient stroke rehabilitation. A high English proficiency group comprised people with native or near native English proficiency (n = 80), and a low English proficiency group comprised people who preferred a language other than English (n = 80). OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of stay (LOS), discharge destination and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). RESULTS: The low English proficiency group showed a greater improvement in FIM from admission to discharge (p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between groups in LOS, discharge destination and number of encounters with allied health professionals. Increased interpreter usage improved FIM efficiency but did not significantly alter other outcomes. CONCLUSION: English proficiency does not appear to impact on health outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation with a primarily in-house professional interpreter service. However, there is a need for a larger powered study to confirm these findings. Implications for rehabilitation People with low English proficiency undergoing inpatient stroke rehabilitation in a setting with a primarily in-house professional interpreter service, achieved similar outcomes to those with high English proficiency irrespective of frequency of interpreter usage. A non-significant increase of 4 days length of stay was observed in the low English proficiency group compared to the high English proficiency group. For patients with low English proficiency, greater change in Functional Independence Measure efficiency scores was observed for those with higher levels of interpreter use relative to those with low interpreter use. Clinicians should optimise use of interpreters with patients with low English proficiency when possible.