View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository
View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository
View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
5.7.5 ITEM 34 PROGRESS MONITORING<br />
The progress <strong>of</strong> the patient is monitored until the patient is ready for 'discharge and<br />
prepared for community reintegration. Progress monitoring is continuous even after<br />
discharge, though the amputees have to attend community rehabilitation centres which<br />
are not available in all communities. This item was therefore included to ascertain if<br />
amputees were followed up.<br />
TABLE 5.19 COMMUNITYREHABlLlTATION CElItTRES USED FOR PROGRESS<br />
MO!\TIORlNG<br />
Rehabilitation Centres Frequency Percentage<br />
Community Rehabilitation Centre 0 0<br />
Hospital 19 76%<br />
Never Monitored Progress 6 24%<br />
Total 25 100%<br />
Table 5.19 indicates thatthe majority <strong>of</strong>the amputees were monitored in the hospital (19)<br />
76% as there were no community rehabilitation services (0) 0%. The progress <strong>of</strong>(6) 24%<br />
.<strong>of</strong>the respondents were never monitored at all; and they visited health centres only when<br />
they had problems with their stumps or when requiring the renewal <strong>of</strong> the disability<br />
grants. The reason for not monitoring their progress was financial problems as they were<br />
breadwinners depending on the disability grant, and health centres were very far away.<br />
They were assisted by fatnily members until their stumps healed well and were able to<br />
use their rehabilitation aids. The amputees (19) 76% that monitored their progress in the<br />
hospital were initially referred to the community health services, but were frequently sent<br />
back to the referring hospitals because community services had no resources to cater for<br />
these clients. This is supported by Mpanza and Van Tonder (1994:76) that the key<br />
helpers <strong>of</strong> the amputees were mostly women, with 85% <strong>of</strong> them being wives <strong>of</strong> the<br />
amputees. Chilvers and Browse (1981) in Kubheka and Uys (2001:72) support this<br />
statement thatamputees donot bave sources <strong>of</strong>assistance for their practical problems and<br />
thatrelatives were the most common helpers.<br />
72