Brain injury professionals' perspectives on risk assessment
Author:
Weatherhead Stephen,Newby Gavin,Skirrow Paul
Abstract
PurposeThe sequelae of acquired brain injury can lead to a complex array of risks. This research explores professionals' perspectives on those risks, focussing on how psycho‐social risks are assessed and managed.Design/methodology/approachA self completion questionnaire was designed, and distributed to a range of professionals working in brain injury services.FindingsA total of 177 participants completed an anonymous questionnaire. Principal components analysis produced three factors, which were given the labels “User‐friendliness”, “Person‐centeredness” and “Coherence”. Inconsistencies were identified in approaches to risk assessment and management. Participants also reported particular beneficial approaches, such as multi‐disciplinary discussions, and using assessments to guide rehabilitation.Research limitations/implicationsThe convenience sampling approach limits the generalisablity of the findings. However, the study was adequately powered, reliable, and valid.Practical implicationsThe findings of this research, existing literature, and clinical experience are drawn together in a proposed model for managing risk. This model, which incorporates the three factors identified through statistical analysis could guide effective risk management, documentation and associated procedures. The model presents a framework for service design and provision, as well as providing a focus for future research.Social implicationsIt is likely that more active engagement in risk assessment on the part of professionals, services, and those who access services, will be engendered if the process is able to become more user‐friendly, person‐centred, and coherent, across and within service provision.Originality/valueDespite legislative calls for regular training and effective communication in relation to risk, this is not the routine experience of professionals working in brain injury services. The findings of the present research offer a new, structured process, for overcoming the challenge for embedding legislation and research findings into practice.
Subject
Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Community and Home Care,Rehabilitation,Health (social science)
Reference32 articles.
1. Baguley, I.J., Cooper, J. and Felmingham, K. (2006), “Aggressive behaviour following traumatic brain injury: how common is common?”, Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 45‐56. 2. Banja, J.D. (1994), “Risk assessment and patient autonomy”, Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 70‐2. 3. Bowen, A., Neumann, V., Conner, M., Tennant, A. and Chamberlain, M.A. (1998), “Mood disorders following traumatic brain injury: identifying the extent of the problem and the people at risk”, Brain Injury, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177‐90. 4. Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”. Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77‐101. 5. Comrey, A.L. and Lee, H.B. (1992), A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|