Search

Background: Following stroke, a sense of well‐being is critical for quality of life. However, people living with stroke, and health professionals, suggest that well‐being is not sufficiently addressed within stroke services, contributing to persistent unmet needs. Knowing that systems and structures shape clinical practice, this study sought to understand how health professionals address well‐being, and to examine how the practice context influences care practice. Methods: Underpinned by Interpretive Description methodology, we interviewed 28 health professionals across multiple disciplines working in stroke services (acute and rehabilitation) throughout New Zealand. Data were analysed using applied tension analysis. Results: Health professionals are managing multiple lines of work in stroke care: biomedical work of investigation, intervention and prevention; clinical work of assessment, monitoring and treatment; and moving people through service. While participants reported working to support well‐being, this could be deprioritised amidst the time‐oriented pressures of the other lines of work that were privileged within services, rendering it unsupported and invisible. Conclusion: Stroke care is shaped by biomedical and organisational imperatives that privilege physical recovery and patient throughput. Health professionals are not provided with the knowledge, skills, time or culture of care that enable them to privilege well‐being within their work. This has implications for the well‐being of people with stroke, and the well‐being of health professionals. In making these discourses and culture visible, and tracing how these impact on clinical practice, we hope to provide insight into why well‐being work remains other to the 'core' work of stroke, and what needs to be considered if stroke services are to better support people's well‐being. Patient or Public Contributions: People with stroke, family members and people who provide support to people with stroke, and health professionals set priorities for this research. They advised on study conduct and have provided feedback on wider findings from the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Engagement is increasingly recognised as important for maximising rehabilitation outcome following stroke. However, engagement can be challenging when neurological impairment impacts a persons' ability to activate the regulatory processes necessary for engagement and in the context of a changed self. We explored engagement in stroke rehabilitation from the perspective of people with stroke with a primary focus on identifying key processes that appeared important to engagement in stroke rehabilitation. Design and Methods: This study drew on Interpretive Description methodology. Maximum variation and theoretical sampling were used to capture diversity in the sample and access a depth and breadth of perspectives. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with people with stroke (n = 19). Data were analysed through a collaborative and iterative process drawing on range of analytical tools including coding, memoing, diagramming and group discussions. Findings: Our findings highlight that engagement is a complex, nuanced, responsive, flexible and inherently two-way process. Developing connections appeared central to engagement with connections taking various forms. The most fundamental was the therapeutic connection between the person with stroke and their practitioner as it provided the foundation on which to build other connections. Connection was made possible through five collaborative processes: Knowing, Entrusting, Adapting, Investing and Reciprocating. Conclusions: Engagement is a social and relational process enabled through an inherently person-centred approach and active and ongoing reflexivity – highlighting the importance of a humanising approach to care where aspects of self, care and emotion are evident, for both the person with stroke and their practitioner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In this paper, we critically investigate the implementation of person-centered care with the purpose of advancing philosophical debates regarding the overarching aims and delivery of rehabilitation. While general agreement exists regarding person centered care's core principles, how practitioners reconcile the implementation of these principles with competing practice demands remains an open question. Materials and methods: For the paper, we drew on post-qualitative methods to engage in a process of "diffractive" analysis wherein we analyzed the micro-doings of person-centered care in everyday rehabilitation work. Working from our team members' diverse experiences, traditions, and epistemological commitments, we engaged with data from nine "care events" generated in previous research to interrogate the multiple forces that co-produce care practices. Results: We map our analyses under three categories: scripts mediate practice, securing compliance through "benevolent manipulations", and care(ful) tinkering. In the latter, we explore the notion of tinkering as a useful concept for approaching person centered care. Uncertainty, humility, and doubt in one's expertise are inherent to tinkering, which involves a continual questioning of what to do, what is best, and what is person centered care within each moment of care. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for rehabilitation and person-centered care. Determinations of what constitutes good, better, or best rehabilitation practices are inevitably questions of ethics. Person-centered care is promoted as good practice in rehabilitation because it provides a framework for attending to the personhood of all engaged in clinical encounters. Post-critical analyses suggest that multiple interacting forces, conditions, assumptions, and actions intersect in shaping each rehabilitation encounter such that what constitutes good care or person-centered care cannot be determined in advance. "Tinkering" is a potentially useful approach that involves a continual questioning of what to do, what is best, and what is person-centered care within each moment of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Engagement is commonly considered important in stroke rehabilitation, with some arguing it is essential for positive patient outcomes. An emerging body of research indicates the practitioner influences engagement through their ways of relating, communicating and working with the patient. People experiencing communication disability may face particular challenges with engagement as a practitioner's communication and interactional patterns may limit their ability to engage. Aims: To understand how rehabilitation practitioners worked to engage people experiencing communication disability throughout the course of rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures: A qualitative study using the Voice Centred Relational Approach. Longitudinal observational and interview data were gathered from 28 practitioners and three people experiencing communication disability in inpatient and community stroke rehabilitation services. Data were analyzed using the Listening Guide. Outcomes & Results: Engagement was a relational practice on the part of the rehabilitation practitioner. It was underpinned by a relational philosophy and characterized by three core processes: embedding relational work throughout rehabilitation; getting to know the patient and working in ways valued by the patient; and communicating using relational dialogue and supported conversation. Practitioners wove these together with their technical, disciplinary‐based work and rehabilitation tasks. Conclusions & Implications: Patient engagement was constructed through relationships and strongly influenced by the practitioners’ way of thinking about and enacting practice, challenging the idea that engagement is solely an intrinsic patient state and behaviour. The findings raise questions about which aspects of rehabilitation work and communication are most valuable when working to engage people experiencing communication disability. Viewing engagement as a relational practice and understanding the different ways this is enacted may support practitioners to reflect on their understandings of engagement, their patient's engagement, their ways of working, and the frames and philosophies that surround and influence their practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]