Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stephen, P.
Right arrow Articles by Aitken, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Stephen, P.
Right arrow Articles by Aitken, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 1, No. 3, 181-186 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/026921558700100303

Morbidity survey of lower limb amputees

PJ Stephen

Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Princess Margaret Rose Orthopaedic Hospital, Edinburgh

J. Hunter

Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Princess Margaret Rose Orthopaedic Hospital, Edinburgh

Rcb Aitken

Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Princess Margaret Rose Orthopaedic Hospital, Edinburgh

A prospective study of morbidity among 55 lower limb amputees was carried out by multiprofessional teams in two rehabilitation units in Lothian. The aim of treatment was the restoration of independence rather than concentration solely on walking training, although this was important in that 90% of patients were fitted with a temporary artificial limb. The problems and progress of these patients varied, but 90% returned successfully to the community where they made moderate demands on community services. Important differences in professional assessment were noted. The physiotherapists judged that 73% of the patients studied were mobile without help prior to discharge, whereas nurses placed only 46% of the same group at this level of independence. The occupational therapist assessed more of the patients (68%) as fully independent in selfcare than the nurses (44%). This difference between what the patient can do when assessed in therapy and what he actually does when observed in the ward was resolved in case conferences.

Forty of the 46 patients who survived for one year replied to a postal questionnaire. Of these, 29 reported independence in mobility indoors and 20 reported total independence in activities of daily living, indicating that as a group they had achieved the level of function predicted. Only two patients required institutional care; two patients (17% of those previously employed) had returned to work.

Successful rehabilitation of patients with multiple problems requires a holistic approach. This study demonstrates the need for multiprofessional case discussions so that appropriate decisions on discharge and future management can be made.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
P. Stephen, I. Lightbody, and D. Shaw
A comprehensive rehabilitation service-produced by integration of existing facilities
Clinical Rehabilitation, February 1, 1991; 5(1): 35 - 39.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
A. Drummond
Surveys
Clinical Rehabilitation, January 1, 1990; 4(4): 255 - 259.
[PDF]