Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T19:58:09.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Neurological rehabilitation – basic principles and models of delivery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

Michael P. Barnes
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Harriet Radermacher
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to place neurological rehabilitation in a historical context and outline some of the basic underlying principles. Neurological rehabilitation is a relatively new subject and has grown up in a hospital-orientated environment. The need for a new community emphasis will be explored and some theoretical models of delivery discussed. However, first it is important to review briefly the epidemiology of disability in order for the importance of this subject to be placed in an appropriate context.

Epidemiology

The roots of neurology lie in late nineteenth century psychiatry but over the years a rather false distinction has slowly been made between neurological disorders and psychiatric disorders, even though many important disorders such as schizophrenia, manic-depressive illness and senile dementia almost certainly involve an organic disturbance of brain function. In recent years the false distinction between neurology and psychiatry has been made more apparent by the emergence of neurological rehabilitation units in which it is increasingly recognized that the clear distinction is unhelpful. People with traumatic brain injury will nearly always have a combination of physical, psychological, emotional and behavioural problems, which require the expertise of a full multidisciplinary team and one that is preferably trained in both the physical and psychological consequences of disease and injury. Many rehabilitation specialists now also have some training in psychiatry and increasing help is given by the emerging speciality of neuropsychiatry.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

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

Bax, M., Smythe, D. and Thomas, A. (1998). Health care of physically handicapped young adults. British Medical Journal 290, 1153–5Google Scholar
Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management Teams. London: Heinemann
Blackerby, W. F. (1990). Intensity of rehabilitation and length of stay. Brain Injury 4, 167–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brisenden, S. (1986). Independent living in a medical model of disability. Disability, Handicap and Society 1, 173–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine (1998). Rehabilitation after Traumatic Brain Injury. London: BSRM.
British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine (1999). The effectiveness of rehabilitation: a critical review of the evidence. Clinical Rehabilitation 13 (Suppl. 1), 1–81
Brooks, D. N., Campsie, L., Symington, C. et al. (1987a). The effects of severe head injury on the patient and relative within seven years of injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2, 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, D. N., McKinlay, W. W., Symington, C. et al. (1987b). Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury. Brain Injury 1, 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock
Bury, M. (2000). A comment on the ICIDH II. Disability and Society 15, 1073–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cope, N. and Hall, K. (1982). Head injury rehabilitation: benefits of early intervention. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 63, 433–7Google ScholarPubMed
Cope, N. D., Cole, J. R., Hall, K. and Barkans, H. (1991). Brain injury: analysis of outcome in a post-acute rehabilitation system. Part I. General analysis. Brain Injury 5, 111–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eames, P. and Wood, R. (1985). Rehabilitation after severe brain injury: a follow-up study of a behavioural modification approach. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 48, 613–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ends, E. J. and Page, C. W. (1977). Organizational Team Building. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop
Francabandera, F. L., Holland, N. J., Wiesel-Levison, P. and Scheinberg, L. C. (1988). Multiple sclerosis rehabilitation: inpatient versus outpatient. Rehabilitation Nursing 13, 251–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J., Langdon, D., Hobart, J. and Thompson, A. J. (1996). The impact of rehabilitation on disability and handicap in progressive multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Neurology 3 (Suppl. 2), 15Google Scholar
Garraway, W. M., Akhtar, A. J., Hockey, L. and Prescott, R. J. (1980a). Management of acute stroke in the elderly: preliminary results of a controlled trial. British Medical Journal 280, 1040–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garraway, W. M., Akhtar, A. J., Hockey, L. and Prescott, R. J. (1980b). Management of acute stroke in the elderly: follow-up of a controlled trial. British Medical Journal 281, 827–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlovits, T. and McColl, M. A. (1999) Coping with community reintegration after severe brain injury: a description of stresses and coping strategies. Brain Injury 13, 845–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, D., Howard, R. S., Losseff, N. A. and Thompson, A. J. (1995). The benefit of inpatient neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Clinical Rehabilitation 9, 198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwakkel, G., Wagenaar, R. C., Koelman, T. W. et al. (1997). The effects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke. A research synthesis. Stroke 28, 1550–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langhorne, P., Williams, B. O., Gilchrist, W. and Howie, K. (1993). Do stroke units save lives?Lancet 342, 395–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langton-Hewer, R. (1993). The epidemiology of disabling neurological disorders. In Neurological rehabilitation, ed. R. Greenwood, M. Barnes, T. McMillan and C. Ward, pp. 3–12. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston
Martin, J., Meltzer, H. and Elliot, D. (1988). The Prevalence of Disability among Young Adults. OPCS Report 1. London: HMSO.
Oddy, M., Coughlan, T., Tyerman, A. and Jenkins, D. (1985). Social adjustment after closed head injury: a further follow-up seven years after injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 48, 564–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ottenbacher, K. J. and Janelle, S. (1993). The results of clinical trials in stroke rehabilitation research. Archives of Neurology 50, 37–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project (1983). Incidence of stroke in Oxfordshire: first years' experience of a community stroke register. British Medical Journal 287, 713–17CrossRef
Pfeiffer, D. (2000). The devils are in the details: the ICIDH II and the disability movement. Disability and Society 15, 1079–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, M. G. and Dickinson, J. C. (1992). The incidence of cerebral palsy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 167, 417–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semlyen, J. K., Summers, S. J. and Barnes, M. P. (1998). Traumatic brain injury: efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 79, 678–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shiel, A., Henry, D., Clark, J. et al. (1999). Effect of increased intervention on rate of functional recovery after brain injury: preliminary results of a controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 13, 90Google Scholar
Slade, A., Chamberlain, M. A. and Tennant, A. (1999). Enhancing therapy: does it make a difference?Clinical Rehabilitation 13, 94Google Scholar
The Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability (1985). Living Options. London: Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability
Tuel, S. M., Presty, S. K., Meythaler, J. M. et al. (1992). Functional improvement in severe head injury after re-admission for rehabilitation. Brain Injury 6, 363–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, D. and Langton-Hewer, R. (1987). Epidemiology of some neurological diseases, with specific reference to workload on the NHS. International Rehabilitation Medicine 8, 129–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. Albany, NY: WHO.
World Health Organization (1999). International Classification of Functioning and Disability – Beta-2 draft. Geneva: WHO.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×