Attitudes and practices of specialty physicians regarding the return to school process after pediatric acquired brain injury.

IF 1 Q4 PEDIATRICS Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3233/PRM-210130
Bethany L Johnson-Kerner, Kathleen Colao, Nathan K Evanson, J Michael Taylor
{"title":"Attitudes and practices of specialty physicians regarding the return to school process after pediatric acquired brain injury.","authors":"Bethany L Johnson-Kerner,&nbsp;Kathleen Colao,&nbsp;Nathan K Evanson,&nbsp;J Michael Taylor","doi":"10.3233/PRM-210130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>More than 50,000 children are hospitalized yearly in the U.S. for acquired brain injury (ABI) with no established standards or protocols for school re-entry and limited resources for hospital-school communication. While ultimately the school has autonomy over curricula and services, specialty physicians were asked about their participation and perception of barriers in the school re-entry process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Approximately 545 specialty physicians were sent an electronic survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>84 responses (43% neurologists and 37% physiatrists) were obtained with a response rate of ∼15%. Thirty-five percent reported that specialty clinicians currently make the plan for school re-entry. The biggest challenge for school re-entry noted by physicians was cognitive difficulties (63%). The biggest gaps perceived by physicians were a lack of hospital-school liaisons to help design and implement a school re-entry plan (27%), schools' inability to implement a school re-entry plan (26%), and an evidence-based cognitive rehab curriculum (26%). Forty-seven percent of physicians reported that they did not have adequate medical personnel to support school re-entry. The most commonly used outcome measure was family satisfaction. Ideal outcome measures included satisfaction (33%) and formal assessment of quality of life (26%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data suggest that specialty physicians identify a lack of school liaisons in the medical setting as an important gap in hospital-school communication. Satisfaction and formal assessment of quality of life are meaningful outcomes for this provider group.</p>","PeriodicalId":16692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine","volume":" ","pages":"497-505"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-210130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: More than 50,000 children are hospitalized yearly in the U.S. for acquired brain injury (ABI) with no established standards or protocols for school re-entry and limited resources for hospital-school communication. While ultimately the school has autonomy over curricula and services, specialty physicians were asked about their participation and perception of barriers in the school re-entry process.

Methods: Approximately 545 specialty physicians were sent an electronic survey.

Results: 84 responses (43% neurologists and 37% physiatrists) were obtained with a response rate of ∼15%. Thirty-five percent reported that specialty clinicians currently make the plan for school re-entry. The biggest challenge for school re-entry noted by physicians was cognitive difficulties (63%). The biggest gaps perceived by physicians were a lack of hospital-school liaisons to help design and implement a school re-entry plan (27%), schools' inability to implement a school re-entry plan (26%), and an evidence-based cognitive rehab curriculum (26%). Forty-seven percent of physicians reported that they did not have adequate medical personnel to support school re-entry. The most commonly used outcome measure was family satisfaction. Ideal outcome measures included satisfaction (33%) and formal assessment of quality of life (26%).

Conclusion: These data suggest that specialty physicians identify a lack of school liaisons in the medical setting as an important gap in hospital-school communication. Satisfaction and formal assessment of quality of life are meaningful outcomes for this provider group.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专科医生对儿童获得性脑损伤后返校过程的态度和做法。
目的:美国每年有5万多名儿童因获得性脑损伤(ABI)住院治疗,但没有既定的重返校园标准或协议,医院与学校沟通的资源有限。虽然学校最终对课程和服务拥有自主权,但专科医生被问及他们在重返学校过程中的参与程度和对障碍的看法。方法:向大约545名专科医生发送了一份电子调查。结果:获得84个应答(43%的神经科医生和37%的物理科医生),应答率为~15%。35%的人报告说,专业临床医生目前正在制定重返校园的计划。医生指出,重新入学面临的最大挑战是认知困难(63%)。医生认为最大的差距是缺乏医院与学校的联系来帮助设计和实施重返校园计划(27%),学校无法实施重返学校计划(26%),以及循证认知康复课程(26%)。47%的医生报告说,他们没有足够的医务人员来支持重新入学。最常用的结果衡量标准是家庭满意度。理想的结果指标包括满意度(33%)和对生活质量的正式评估(26%)。结论:这些数据表明,专科医生认为,在医疗环境中缺乏学校联系是医院与学校沟通的一个重要差距。满意度和对生活质量的正式评估对这一提供者群体来说是有意义的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
139
期刊最新文献
Pediatrician reported experiences of transitioning adolescents with disabilities. Psychometric Evaluation of Sexual Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Components of the SPARKS Survey for Adults with Spina Bifida. Coping experiences in child and adolescent rehabilitation through a novel device: A multi-method feasibility study. Acute effect of hippotherapy applied on different sitting surfaces in children with special needs. Effects of diaphragmatic breathing and manual diaphragm relaxation on respiratory muscle strength, chest expansion, pulmonary function, and sitting ability in children with diplegic cerebral palsy: A randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1