Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:42:54.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Service Use and Barriers with Post-Acute-Care Rehabilitation Following Acquired Brain Injury: Family Caregiver Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2016

Charles Edmund Degeneffe*
Affiliation:
Rehabilitation Counseling Program, Department of Administration, Rehabilitation, and Postsecondary Education, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
Richard Green
Affiliation:
Sharp Rehabilitation Center, San Diego, CA
Clair Jones
Affiliation:
Barrow Neurological Institute, St Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ
*
Address for correspondence: Charles Edmund Degeneffe, Rehabilitation Counseling Program, Department of Administration, Rehabilitation, and Postsecondary Education, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, EBA-227a, San Diego, CA 92182. E-mail: cdegenef@mail.sdsu.edu
Get access

Abstract

The study aimed to understand the use and barriers to use of post-acute-care services by persons with acquired brain injury (ABI). A total of 21 primary family caregivers of persons recently discharged from an ABI acute-care facility in a large southwestern city in the United States participated. Service use in 14 domains appeared consistent with post-discharge needs. In five service areas, participants were not aware the service was available. Professionals in acute ABI rehabilitation units need to be fully aware of the range of available potential supports and diligent in informing injured persons and their families about available post-discharge services.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Degeneffe, C.E. (2013). Introduction and overview. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 19 (2), 6970.Google Scholar
Degeneffe, C.E., Boot, D., Kuehne, J., Kuraishi, A., Maristela, F., Noyes, J., . . . Will, H. (2008). Community-based interventions for persons with traumatic brain injury: A primer for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 39 (1), 4252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degeneffe, C.E., & Bursnall, S. (2015). Quality of professional services following traumatic brain injury: Adult sibling perspectives. Social Work, 60, 1928.Google Scholar
Degeneffe, C.E., Green, R., & Jones, E.C. (in press). Service use and satisfaction following acquired brain injury: A preliminary analysis of family caregiver outcomes. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education.Google Scholar
Depuis, P.R. (2007). HyperResearch (Version 2.8) [Computer software]. Randolph, MA: Research Ware, Inc.Google Scholar
Greenwald, B.D. (2010). Traumatic brain injury and acute inpatient rehabilitation. Available at: http://uwmsktc.washington.edu/sites/uwmsktc/files/files/TBI_Inpatient_Rehab.pdf.Google Scholar
Malec, J.F., & Ponsford, J.L. (2000). Postacute brain injury rehabilitation. In Frank, R.G. & Elliott, T. (Eds.). Handbook of rehabilitation psychology. (pp. 417439). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
McCabe, P., Lippert, C., Weiser, M., Hilditch, M., Hartridge, C., & Villamere, J. (2007). Community reintegration following acquired brain injury. Brain Injury, 21 (2), 231257.Google Scholar
Smith, M.J., Vaughan, F.L., Cox, L.J., McConville, H., Roberts, M., Stoddart, S., & Lew, A.R. (2006). The impact of community rehabilitation for acquired brain injury on carer burden: An exploratory study. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 21 (1), 7681.Google Scholar
Sohlberg, M.M., & Brock, M.S. (1985). Taking the final step: The importance of post-medical cognitive rehabilitation. Cognitive Rehabilitation, 3 (5), 913.Google Scholar
Uomoto, J.M., & McLean, A. Jr. (1989). Care continuum in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 34 (2), 7179.Google Scholar