ORCID Profile
0000-0003-4825-3624
Current Organisations
University of Nottingham
,
University of St Andrews
,
Nottingham Trent University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 19-02-2021
Abstract: Returning to work after traumatic injury can have a range of benefits, but there is currently little research that incorporates patient perspectives to identify outcomes of vocational rehabilitation interventions that are important to survivors. Trauma survivors (n = 17) participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews or focus groups exploring outcomes that were important to them for recovery and return to work. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Participants identified a range of outcomes that they considered important and necessary to facilitate a successful and sustainable return to work: physical and psychological recovery, purposeful life engagement, managing expectations of recovery, managing expectations about return to work, and employers’ expectations. Our participants advocated for a multifaceted and biopsychosocial understanding of recovery and outcomes that need to be captured for vocational rehabilitation interventions. Implications for practice and research are discussed, and recommendations are given based on the findings.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 16-09-2021
Abstract: Background: Returning to work after traumatic injury can be problematic. We developed a vocational telerehabilitation (VR) intervention for trauma survivors, delivered by trained occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs), and explored factors affecting delivery and acceptability in a feasibility study. Methods: Surveys pre- (5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-training (3 OTs, 1 CP) interviews pre- (5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-intervention (4 trauma survivors, 4 OTs, 2 CPs). Mean survey scores for 14 theoretical domains identified telerehabilitation barriers (score ≤ 3.5) and facilitators (score ≥ 5). Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Surveys: pre-training, the only barrier was therapists’ intentions to use telerehabilitation (mean = 3.40 ± 0.23), post-training, 13/14 domains were facilitators. Interviews: barriers/facilitators included environmental context/resources (e.g., technology, patient engagement, privacy/disruptions, travel and access) beliefs about capabilities (e.g., building rapport, complex assessments, knowledge/confidence, third-party feedback and communication style) optimism (e.g., impossible assessments, novel working methods, perceived importance and patient/therapist reluctance) and social rofessional role/identity (e.g., therapeutic methods). Training and experience of intervention delivery addressed some barriers and increased facilitators. The intervention was acceptable to trauma survivors and therapists. Conclusion: Despite training and experience in intervention delivery, some barriers remained. Providing some face-to-face delivery where necessary may address certain barriers, but strategies are required to address other barriers.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 29-10-2018
DOI: 10.1002/EJSP.2543
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 23-11-2020
Abstract: To identify where and how trauma survivors’ rehabilitation needs are met after trauma, to map rehabilitation across five UK major trauma networks, and to compare with recommended pathways. Qualitative study (interviews, focus groups, workshops) using soft-systems methodology to map usual care across trauma networks and explore service gaps. Publicly available documents were consulted. CATWOE (Customers, Actors, Transformation, Worldview, Owners, Environment) was used as an analytic framework to explore the relationship between stakeholders in the pathway. Five major trauma networks across the UK. 106 key rehabilitation stakeholders (service providers, trauma survivors) were recruited to interviews ( n = 46), focus groups ( n = 4 groups, 17 participants) and workshops ( n = 5 workshops, 43 participants). None. Mapping of rehabilitation pathways identified several issues: (1) lack of vocational sychological support particularly for musculoskeletal injuries (2) inconsistent service provision in areas located further from major trauma centres (3) lack of communication between acute and community care (4) long waiting lists (up to 12 months) for community rehabilitation (5) most well-established pathways were neurologically focused. The trauma rehabilitation pathway is complex and varies across the UK with few, if any patients following the recommended pathway. Services have developed piecemeal to address specific issues, but rarely meet the needs of in iduals with multiple impairments post-trauma, with a lack of vocational rehabilitation and psychological support for this population.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 03-2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2021-060294
Abstract: This study aimed to: (1) understand the context for delivering a trauma vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention (2) identify potential barriers and enablers to the implementation of a VR intervention post-trauma. Qualitative study. Data were collected in person or via phone using different methods: 38 semistructured interviews, 11 informal ‘walk-through care pathways’ interviews, 5 focus groups (n=25), 5 codesign workshops (n=43). Data were thematically analysed using the framework approach, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Stakeholders recruited across five UK major trauma networks. A variety of stakeholders were recruited (n=117) including trauma survivors, rehabilitation physicians, therapists, psychologists, trauma coordinators and general practitioners. We recruited 32 service users (trauma survivors or carers) and 85 service providers. There were several issues associated with implementing a trauma VR intervention including: culture within healthcare/employing organisations extent to which healthcare systems were networked with other organisations poor transition between different organisations failure to recognise VR as a priority external policies and funding. Some barriers were typical implementation issues (eg, funding, policies, openness to change). This study further highlighted the challenges associated with implementing a complex intervention like VR (eg, inadequate networking/communication, poor service provision, perceived VR priority). Our intervention was developed to overcome these barriers through adapting a therapist training package, and by providing early contact with patient/employer, a psychological component alongside occupational therapy, case coordination/central point of contact, and support crossing sector boundaries (eg, between health/employment/welfare). Findings informed the implementation of our VR intervention within the complex trauma pathway. Although we understand how to embed it within this context, the success of its implementation needs to be measured as part of a process evaluation in a future trial.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Blerina Kellezi.