Positioning the six-month review in the recovery process post-stroke: The ideology of personal responsibility

Abrahamson, V., Wilson, Patricia M. (2019) Positioning the six-month review in the recovery process post-stroke: The ideology of personal responsibility. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27 (1). pp. 249-259. ISSN 0966-0410. (doi:10.1111/hsc.12677) (Access to this publication is currently restricted. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided)

PDF (revised 2019 version) - Author's Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 30 October 2019.
Contact us about this Publication Download (777kB)
[img]
PDF - Publisher pdf
Restricted to Repository staff only
Contact us about this Publication Download (631kB)
[img]
Official URL
https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12677

Abstract

Stroke is the UK's fourth highest cause of death and an estimated 300,000 people in England are living with related disability. This paper explores the six‐month review (6MR), a policy initiative that aimed to ameliorate unmet need. A multiple case study approach underpinned by critical realism was used to elicit the views of patients, carers, providers and commissioners across three sites using interviews, observations and documentation. Forty‐six patients (age range 28–91 years), 30 carers and 28 professionals were interviewed between December 2015 and October 2016. Twenty‐nine reviews were observed. Data was analysed thematically across sites. 6MRs carried out by stroke nurse specialists (SNSs) were found to be more medically orientated than those completed by a Stroke Association (SA) co‐ordinator who focused on social issues. Reviewers regarded reviews primarily as an opportunity to address unmet need and signpost to further services. Patients responded in three different ways: proactive and engaged, reflected an active orientation to recovery and self‐management; proactive and self‐managing on their own terms, encompassed patients who were striving for independence but took their own approach sometimes at odds with that of clinicians; and passive orientation, whereby patients did not engage in rehabilitation or self‐management. Patients identified different priorities to those of reviewers, particularly those with other long‐term conditions and this appeared to contribute to the dissatisfaction that some expressed. In conclusion, there was little evidence that the 6MR played a key role in recovery. Locally defined outcomes for the 6MR reflecting national policy were not substantiated by the findings. Our findings suggest that the 6MR should review therapy goals and facilitate patient‐led goals. Reviewers should be allowed the freedom to individualise the process rather than adhering to a rigid framework dictated by national policy and local protocols.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1111/hsc.12677
Uncontrolled keywords: self-management, stroke rehabilitation, user's views, health and social care, practice and policy issues, six-month review
Subjects: R Medicine
R Medicine > RT Nursing
Divisions: Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Social Policy Sociology and Social Research
Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Social Policy Sociology and Social Research > Centre for Health Services Studies
Depositing User: Vanessa Abrahamson
Date Deposited: 07 Nov 2018 09:47 UTC
Last Modified: 29 May 2019 21:24 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/69963 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Abrahamson, V.: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-9457
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year