Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/27471
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCahill, Liana S-
dc.contributor.authorLannin, Natasha A-
dc.contributor.authorPurvis, Tara-
dc.contributor.authorCadilhac, Dominique A-
dc.contributor.authorMak-Yuen, Yvonne-
dc.contributor.authorO'Connor, Denise A-
dc.contributor.authorCarey, Leeanne M-
dc.date2021-09-09-
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-13T05:57:56Z-
dc.date.available2021-09-13T05:57:56Z-
dc.date.issued2021-09-09-
dc.identifier.citationDisability and Rehabilitation 2022; 44(21): 6462-6470en
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/27471-
dc.description.abstractTo characterise the assessments and treatments that comprise "usual care" for stroke patients with somatosensory loss, and whether usual care has changed over time. Comparison of cross-sectional, observational data from (1) Stroke Foundation National Audit of Acute (2007-2019) and Rehabilitation (2010-2018) Stroke Services and (2) the SENSe Implement multi-site knowledge translation study with occupational therapists and physiotherapists (n = 115). Descriptive statistics, random effects logistic regression, and content analysis were used. Acute hospitals (n = 172) contributed 24 996 cases across audits from 2007 to 2019 (median patient age 76 years, 54% male). Rehabilitation services (n = 134) contributed organisational survey data from 2010 to 2014, with 7165 cases (median 76 years, 55% male) across 2016-2018 clinical audits (n = 127 services). Somatoensory assessment protocol use increased from 53% (2007) to 86% (2019) (odds ratio 11.4, 95% CI 5.0-25.6). Reported use of sensory-specific retraining remained stable over time (90-93%). Therapist practice reports for n = 86 patients with somatosensory loss revealed 16% did not receive somatosensory rehabilitation. The most common treatment approaches were sensory rehabilitation using everyday activities (69%), sensory re-education (68%), and compensatory strategies (64%). Sensory assessment protocol use has increased over time while sensory-specific training has remained stable. Sensory rehabilitation in the context of everyday activities is a common treatment approach. Clinical trial registration number: ACTRN12615000933550IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONOnly a small proportion of upper limb assessments conducted with stroke patients focus specifically on sensation; increased use of standardised upper limb assessments for sensory loss is needed.Stroke patients assessed as having upper limb sensory loss frequently do not receive treatment for their deficits.Therapists typically use everyday activities to treat upper limb sensory loss and may require upskilling in sensory-specific retraining to benefit patients.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectStrokeen
dc.subjectclinical auditen
dc.subjecthealth services researchen
dc.subjectsomatosensory disordersen
dc.subjectupper extremityen
dc.titleWhat is "usual care" in the rehabilitation of upper limb sensory loss after stroke? Results from a national audit and knowledge translation study.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleDisability and Rehabilitationen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationOccupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Healthen
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Neurosciences, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAllied Health (Occupational Therapy), Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationPublic Health and Health Services Evaluation, Stroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/09638288.2021.1964620en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-1730-9843en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2066-8345en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3332-5357en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-8162-682Xen
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-0476-1769en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-6836-122Xen
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-6376-8613en
dc.identifier.pubmedid34498991-
local.name.researcherCarey, Leeanne M
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

34
checked on Oct 1, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.