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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

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!