01.08.2013 Views

View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!