scholarly journals Predictors of adverse outcomes on an acute geriatric rehabilitation ward

2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Singh ◽  
J. Gallacher ◽  
K. Davis ◽  
A. Johansen ◽  
E. Eeles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Geriatric Rehabilitation ◽  
Rehabilitation Ward

scholarly journals 99 Safer Mobility: Practice vs Preach

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii17-iii65
Author(s):  
Sive Carey ◽  
Adefunke Salawu ◽  
Marian Glynn
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Inpatient Rehabilitation ◽  
Geriatric Rehabilitation ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
Ward Staff ◽  
Rehabilitation Team ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Ward Level ◽  
Rehabilitation Ward ◽  
Mobility Status

Abstract Background Activity levels in older people undergoing inpatient rehabilitation are low. Intervention by the rehabilitation team amounts to 2% of a patient’s day. Interdisciplinary working helps to ensure that therapy continues beyond the physiotherapy gym. However, safe handling is required. Aims Examine the awareness of ward staff of the mobility status of their patients. Investigate if staff on a general geriatric rehabilitation ward are compliant with physiotherapy mobility recommendations. Methods Data collection took place on a general geriatric rehabilitation ward from February to March 2019. Staff Awareness was assessed by individually asking ward staff (Nurses and Health Care Assistants) to identify the mobility status of their patients. Their responses were recorded and compared with the physiotherapy mobility recommendations as per the MDT (multi-disciplinary) communication whiteboard. The mobility status of each patient was observed by means of random visual audits. Observations were recorded and subsequently compared to the physiotherapy mobility recommendations as above for compliance. Results For the staff awareness audit, 95 responses were obtained from 10 different staff members. 50.5% of responses (n=48) correctly identified patients’ mobility status. 49.5% (n=47) incorrectly identified patients’ mobility status. From 10 visual audits, a total of 196 patient observations were recorded. In 37.2% (n=73) of observations, patients were not mobilising as per physiotherapy recommendations. 39.3% (n=77) of observations were as recommended. In 23.5% (n=46) of observations, patients were not mobilised at all. Conclusion There was limited awareness among ward staff of the mobility status of their patients. Over 1/3 of patients were not mobilised as per physiotherapy recommendations. These findings can compromise both patient and staff safety. The visual audit also highlighted low physical activity levels in some patients. Implications for clinical practice include the need for education on safer mobility and the promotion of patient physical activity at ward level. Physiotherapy led educational and practical handling sessions for ward staff have proven to be beneficial in this regard.

scholarly journals Patients’ Expectations in a Geriatric Rehabilitation Ward: Matching with Actual Outcomes

Health ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 09 (11) ◽  
pp. 1597-1604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Colombo ◽  
Carla Facchini ◽  
Achim Rusu ◽  
Eleonora Marelli ◽  
Giuseppe Procino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Geriatric Rehabilitation ◽  
Rehabilitation Ward

scholarly journals Modification in self-rated health in patients discharged by a geriatric rehabilitation ward

Health ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 05 (06) ◽  
pp. 94-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora Marelli ◽  
Giuseppe Procino ◽  
Maria Cottino ◽  
Giorgio Previderè ◽  
Silvio Giorgi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Geriatric Rehabilitation ◽  
Self Rated Health ◽  
Rehabilitation Ward

Research Consumerism 101: Evaluating External Evidence of Treatment Effectiveness

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 43-49
Author(s):  
James L. Coyle
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Oropharyngeal Dysphagia ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Professional Services ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Intervention Selection ◽  
Published Research

Abstract The modern clinician is a research consumer. Rehabilitation of oropharyngeal impairments, and prevention of the adverse outcomes of dysphagia, requires the clinician to select interventions for which evidence of a reasonable likelihood of a successful, important outcome exists. The purpose of this paper is to provide strategies for evaluation of published research regarding treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia. This article utilizes tutorial and examples to inform and educate practitioners in methods of appraising published research. It provides and encourages the use of methods of efficiently evaluating the validity and clinical importance of published research. Additionally, it discusses the importance of the ethical obligation we, as practitioners, have to use evidence-based treatment selection methods and measurement of patient performance during therapy. The reader is provided with tactics for evaluating treatment studies to establish a study's validity and, thereby, objectively select interventions. The importance of avoiding subjective or unsubstantiated claims and using objective methods of generating empirical clinical evidence is emphasized. The ability to evaluate the quality of research provides clinicians with objective intervention selection as an important, essential component of evidence-based clinical practice. ASHA Code of Ethics (2003): Principle I, Rule F: “Individuals shall fully inform the persons they serve of the nature and possible effects of services rendered and products dispensed…” (p. 2) Principle I, Rule G: “Individuals shall evaluate the effectiveness of services rendered and of products dispensed and shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected.” (p. 2) Principle IV, Rule G: “Individuals shall not provide professional services without exercising independent professional judgment, regardless of referral source or prescription.” (p. 4)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document