Objective: To identify the nature and extent of perceived unmet needs of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) living in the community and to determine their preferences regarding multidisciplinary outreach service delivery.
Design: Structured telephone interviews.
Setting: Spinal Injuries Unit, Queensland, Australia.
Subjects: Sixty people with SCI living in the community were approached for interview and 54 agreed to participate.
Results: The results reflected a high need for a specialist, multidisciplinary SCI outreach service following primary rehabilitation. There were a diversity of issues faced by people with SCI. A high or very high need was reported by 31% of participants in relation to physical changes, by 24% regarding transport, by 22% for work issues and by 19% with respect to ongoing education needs. The greatest perceived barrier to needs being met was limited local specialist knowledge about SCI (81% of participants). A service model which includes access to telephone advice was endorsed by 79% of participants, and 43% supported home visiting that is available to rural and remote areas. Spinal Injuries Unit outpatient clinic appointments were also a preference for service delivery (40% of participants).
Conclusions: Trial and evaluation of the telephone as a primary medium for service delivery, and education of local service providers is recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Johnson RL, Gerhart KA, McCray J, Menconi JC, Whiteneck GG. Secondary conditions following spinal cord injury in a population-based sample. Spinal Cord1998; 36: 45–50.
2.
Dunn M, Love L, Ravesloot C. Subjective health in spinal cord injury after outpatient healthcare follow-up. Spinal Cord2000; 38: 84–91.
3.
Widersstrom-Noga EG, Felipe-Cuervo E, Broton JG, Duncan RC, Yezierski RP. Perceived difficulty in dealing with consequences of spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1999; 80: 580–674.
4.
Post MWM, de Witte LP, van Asbeck FWA, van Dijk AJ, Schrijvers AJP. Predictors of health status and life satisfaction in spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1998; 79: 395–401.
5.
Hart KA, Rintala DH, Fuhrer MJ. Educational interests of individuals with spinal cord injury living in the community: medical, sexuality, and wellness topics. Rehabil Nurs1996; 21: 82–90.
6.
Garber SL, Rintala H, Hart KA, Fuhrer MJ. Pressure ulcer risk in spinal cord injury: predictors of ulcer status over 3 years. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2000; 81: 465–471.
7.
Gallien P, Nicolas B, Robineau S, Le Bot M, Durufle A, Brissot R. Influence of urinary management on urologic complications in a cohort of spinal cord injury patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1998; 79: 1206–1209.
8.
Pentland W, McColl MA, Rosenthal C. The effect of aging and duration of disability on long term health outcomes following spinal cord injury. Paraplegia1995; 33: 367–373.
9.
Ernst JL, Thomas LM, Hahnstadt WA, Piskule AA. The self-identified long-term care needs of persons with SCI. SCI Psychosocial Process1998; 10: 127–135.
10.
Post MWM, van Asbeck FWA, van Dijk AJ, Schrijvers AJP. Services for spinal cord injured: availability and satisfaction. Spinal Cord1997; 35: 109–115.
11.
Harrison C, Kuric J. Community reintegration of SCI persons: problems and perceptions. SCI Nurs1989; 6: 44–47.
12.
DeVivo MJ, Richards JS, Stover SL, Go BK. Spinal cord injury. Rehabilitation adds life to years. West J Med1991; 154: 602–606.
13.
Thomas JP. The model spinal cord injury concept: development and implementation. In: Stover SL, DeLisa JA, Whiteneck GG eds. Spinal cord injury clinical outcomes from the model systems. Maryland: Aspen, 1995: 1–9.
14.
DeJong G, Batavia A. Towards a health services research capacity in spinal cord injury. Paraplegia1991; 29: 373–389.
15.
Blumer C, Quine S. Surveillance of traumatic spinal cord injury in Australia: the identification of information needs. Spinal Cord1996; 34: 639–643.
16.
Canupp KC, Waites KB, DeVivo MJ, Richards JS. Predicting compliance with annual follow-up evaluations in persons with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord1997; 35: 314–319.
17.
Meyers AR, Branch LG, Cupples LA, Lederman RI, Feltin M, Master RJ. Predictors of medical care utilization by independently living adults with spinal cord injuries. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1989; 70: 471–476.
18.
Brown DJ. Spinal cord injuries: the last decade and the next. Paraplegia1992; 30: 77–82.
19.
Curtis KA, Hall KM. Spinal cord injury community follow-up. Role of the physical therapist. Phys Ther1986; 66: 1370–1375.
20.
Conroy L, McKenna K. Vocational outcome following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord1999; 37: 624–633.
21.
Noreau L, Dion SA, Vachon J, Gervais M, Laramee MT. Productivity outcomes of individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord1999; 37: 730–736.
22.
Rintala DH, Loubser PG, Castro J, Hart KA, Fuhrer MJ. Chronic pain in a community-based sample of men with spinal cord injury: prevalence, severity, and relationship with impairment, disability, handicap, and subjective well-being. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1998; 79: 604–614.
23.
Krause JS. Skin sores after spinal cord injury: relationship to life adjustment. Spinal Cord1998; 36: 51–56.
24.
Davidoff G, Schultz JS, Lieb T et al. Rehospitalization after initial rehabilitation for acute spinal cord injury: incidence and risk factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1990; 71: 121–124.
25.
Pershouse K, Cox R, Dorsett P. Hospital readmissions in the first two years after initial rehabilitation for acute spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Injury Rehabil2000; 6: 23–33.
Gerhart K, Bergstrom E, Charlifue S, Menter R, Whiteneck G. Long-term spinal cord injury: functional changes over time. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 1030–1034.
28.
Menter R, Hudson L. Effects of age at injury and the ageing process. In: Stover S, DeLisa J, Whiteneck G eds. Spinal cord injury clinical outcomes from the model systems. Maryland: Aspen, 1995.
29.
Scriven M, Roth J. Special feature: needs assessment. Eval Pract1990; 11: 135–140.
