Interventions for Driving Disruption in Community Rehabilitation: A Chart Audit.

PURPOSE: After injury or illness, a person's ability to drive may be impacted and they may experience a period of "driving disruption," a period during which they cannot drive although they have not permanently ceased driving. They may require additional information and supports from treating rehabilitation services; however, this process is less understood than others related to driving. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study aimed to document the prevalence of driving-related issues and the current practices of a community rehabilitation service, regarding driving interventions. An audit of 80 medical records was conducted in a multidisciplinary community rehabilitation service in Brisbane, Australia. RESULTS: In total, 61% of clients were "driving-disrupted" on admission and 35% remained driving-disrupted on discharge. Majority of driving-disrupted clients had an acquired brain injury (ABI). Driving-related interventions were not routinely provided, with 29% receiving no information or supports. Clients with ABI more frequently received information; provision of psychosocial support and community access training was infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that return to driving is a common issue and goal for people undergoing community rehabilitation, with the period of driving disruption extending beyond rehabilitation discharge. It also highlights gaps in community rehabilitation practice, and opportunities to better support these clients.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMany clients of community rehabilitation services experience driving disruption, often beyond discharge.Driving disruption should be recognised and documented by community rehabilitation services.Current practices may not adequately address the practical and psychological needs of clients experiencing driving disruption.

"Everyone needs rehab, but ": exploring post-stroke rehabilitation referral and acceptance decisions.

PURPOSE: To explore the decision-making processes and experiences of acute and rehabilitation clinicians, regarding referral and acceptance of patients to rehabilitation after stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-site rapid ethnography, involving observation of multidisciplinary case conferences, interviews with acute stroke and rehabilitation clinicians, and review of key documents within five (5) acute stroke units (ASUs) in Queensland, Australia. A cyclical, inductive content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Seven key themes were identified, revealing the complex nature of post-stroke rehabilitation referral and acceptance decision making. Although the majority of clinicians felt that all patients could benefit from rehabilitation, they acknowledged this could not always be the case. Rehabilitation potential and goals were considered by clinicians, but decision making was impacted by ASU context and team processes, rehabilitation service availability and access procedures, and the relationships between the acute and rehabilitation clinicians. Patients and families were not actively involved in the decision-making processes. CONCLUSIONS: Post-stroke rehabilitation decision making in Queensland, Australia involves complex processes and compromise. Decisions are not based solely on patients' rehabilitation needs, and patients and families are not actively involved in the decision-making process. Mechanisms are required to streamline access procedures, and improve shared decision making with patients.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONReferral decision making for post-stroke rehabilitation is complex and not always based solely on patients' needs.Clear and straightforward access procedures and positive relationships between acute and rehabilitation clinicians have a positive impact on referral decision making.Stroke services should review their processes to ensure shared decision making is facilitated when patients require access to rehabilitation.

The Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire in school-aged children with congenital hemiplegia: test-retest reproducibility and parent-child concordance.

AIM: To examine internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and parent-child concordance of the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire 17.0 (DMQ) in school-aged children with congenital hemiplegia. METHOD: Forty-two children (8.24 ± 2.38 years, Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) I = 23, MACS II = 19) and their parents completed the DMQ, and a subset on two occasions 2-30 days apart (n = 27). Cronbach's alpha (α), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurement (SEM), and 95% limits of agreement were calculated. RESULTS: Internal consistency for child self-report was variable (α = 0.57-0.90). Cronbach's alphas for parent proxy report were good (α = 0.69-0.86). Test-retest reproducibility for instrumental aspect (ICC = 0.86) and total motivation (ICC = 0.84) were excellent with subscales ranging from 0.70 to 0.91. The SEM for total motivation was 0.23 points. Parent-child concordance was poor across all scores (ICC = -0.04 to 0.42) with a large SEM (0.50-0.91). INTERPRETATION: The DMQ parent report has good test-retest reproducibility for subscales, instrumental, and total motivation scores in school-aged children with congenital hemiplegia. Parent-child concordance was low highlighting differences in individual and contextual perspectives.