Identifying Visual Impairment After Acquired Brain Injury—Current Practice, Referrals, and Barriers

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Acta Neurologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1155/2024/4858210
Eike Wehling, Trine Schow, Karin Spangsberg Kristensen, Eirik Vikane, Helle K. Falkenberg
{"title":"Identifying Visual Impairment After Acquired Brain Injury—Current Practice, Referrals, and Barriers","authors":"Eike Wehling,&nbsp;Trine Schow,&nbsp;Karin Spangsberg Kristensen,&nbsp;Eirik Vikane,&nbsp;Helle K. Falkenberg","doi":"10.1155/2024/4858210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Purpose:</b> Visual impairment (VI) is still underdiagnosed in patients with acquired brain injury despite the large impact on daily life activities and rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to explore the current practice of identification of VI, management plans, referrals, and experienced barriers in Norwegian hospital settings.</p><p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> An online survey was sent out to leaders (<i>n</i> = 62) in hospitals treating patients with acquired brain injury. Data from 22 items covering routines, interdisciplinary collaboration, assessment tools, protocols, barriers, referral practice, and background information were collected.</p><p><b>Results:</b> Respondents (<i>n</i> = 108) comprised various professions from mainly acute or subacute settings. Visual field deficits, oculomotor dysfunction, and neglect were most commonly but not routinely assessed (53%–57%). Besides medical examination, patient interviews, and observations rather than standardized tests or questionnaires (82% vs.25%) were used. Few workplaces seemed to have interdisciplinary vision teams (13%). Barriers were patient characteristics such as cognitive and language impairment and limited resources. Below half (45%) felt competent in assessing VI or had attended courses on the topic (44%).</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> The study highlights the need to implement standardized assessment, improve interdisciplinary collaboration, and facilitate training courses to enable hospital staff to assess VI after brain injury. These steps could contribute to improved assessment and management of VI and contribute to overcome the indicated barriers leading to better patient care and outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":6939,"journal":{"name":"Acta Neurologica Scandinavica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/4858210","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Neurologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/4858210","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Visual impairment (VI) is still underdiagnosed in patients with acquired brain injury despite the large impact on daily life activities and rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to explore the current practice of identification of VI, management plans, referrals, and experienced barriers in Norwegian hospital settings.

Materials and Methods: An online survey was sent out to leaders (n = 62) in hospitals treating patients with acquired brain injury. Data from 22 items covering routines, interdisciplinary collaboration, assessment tools, protocols, barriers, referral practice, and background information were collected.

Results: Respondents (n = 108) comprised various professions from mainly acute or subacute settings. Visual field deficits, oculomotor dysfunction, and neglect were most commonly but not routinely assessed (53%–57%). Besides medical examination, patient interviews, and observations rather than standardized tests or questionnaires (82% vs.25%) were used. Few workplaces seemed to have interdisciplinary vision teams (13%). Barriers were patient characteristics such as cognitive and language impairment and limited resources. Below half (45%) felt competent in assessing VI or had attended courses on the topic (44%).

Conclusions: The study highlights the need to implement standardized assessment, improve interdisciplinary collaboration, and facilitate training courses to enable hospital staff to assess VI after brain injury. These steps could contribute to improved assessment and management of VI and contribute to overcome the indicated barriers leading to better patient care and outcome.

Abstract Image

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
后天性脑损伤后视力障碍的识别--当前实践、转诊和障碍
目的:尽管视觉障碍(VI)对日常生活活动和康复有很大影响,但后天性脑损伤患者的视觉障碍诊断率仍然很低。本研究旨在探讨挪威医院目前在识别视力障碍、管理计划、转诊和遇到的障碍等方面的做法:对治疗后天性脑损伤患者的医院领导(62人)进行了在线调查。调查收集了22个项目的数据,涉及常规、跨学科合作、评估工具、协议、障碍、转诊做法和背景信息:受访者(108 人)主要来自急诊或亚急性医院的不同专业。视野缺损、眼球运动功能障碍和忽视是最常见的评估项目,但并非常规评估项目(53%-57%)。除了医学检查外,还使用病人访谈和观察,而不是标准化测试或问卷(82% 对 25%)。似乎很少有工作场所设有跨学科视力小组(13%)。患者的认知和语言障碍以及有限的资源等特点是障碍。不到一半(45%)的人认为自己有能力评估视力障碍或参加过相关课程(44%):这项研究强调了实施标准化评估、改善跨学科合作和促进培训课程的必要性,以使医院员工能够评估脑损伤后的视力障碍。这些措施将有助于改善对 VI 的评估和管理,并有助于克服所指出的障碍,从而改善患者护理和治疗效果。
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
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
161
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Neurologica Scandinavica aims to publish manuscripts of a high scientific quality representing original clinical, diagnostic or experimental work in neuroscience. The journal''s scope is to act as an international forum for the dissemination of information advancing the science or practice of this subject area. Papers in English will be welcomed, especially those which bring new knowledge and observations from the application of therapies or techniques in the combating of a broad spectrum of neurological disease and neurodegenerative disorders. Relevant articles on the basic neurosciences will be published where they extend present understanding of such disorders. Priority will be given to review of topical subjects. Papers requiring rapid publication because of their significance and timeliness will be included as ''Clinical commentaries'' not exceeding two printed pages, as will ''Clinical commentaries'' of sufficient general interest. Debate within the speciality is encouraged in the form of ''Letters to the editor''. All submitted manuscripts falling within the overall scope of the journal will be assessed by suitably qualified referees.
期刊最新文献
Comparative Assessment of Simoa and Lumipulse for Measuring Serum Neurofilament Light Chain in Multiple Sclerosis Patients Identifying Visual Impairment After Acquired Brain Injury—Current Practice, Referrals, and Barriers Multiple Sclerosis: An Overview of Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Serological Biomarkers Cluster Headache Decreases Life Expectancy: A Longitudinal Assessment During 40 Years in a Headache Clinic Cohort Diagnostic Panel of Three Genetic Biomarkers Based on Artificial Neural Network for Patients With Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy
×
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:481959085
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