The implementation and evaluation of a community rehabilitation team: a case study

References

• Warden J. Government gives NHS £250m for UK winter health pressures. British Medical Journal 1998; 317: 1338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner A. Intermediate Care: A Conceptual Framework and Review of the Literature. The King’s Fund, London 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Hyde CJ, Robert IE, Sinclair AJ. The effects of supporting discharge from hospital to home in older people. Age and Ageing 2000; 29: 271– 279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepperd S, Illiffe S. Hospital-at-Home Versus In-Patient Hospital Care (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, Update Software, Oxford, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner A, Vaughan B, Hanford L. Intermediate Care: Approaches to Evaluation. The King’s Fund, London 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Shield F. Developing a therapy-led community rehabilitation team. Managing Community Care 1998; 6(4): 160– 168.
   Google Scholar
• Luker K, Waters K, Austin L, Griffiths J, Gosden T. An Evaluation of the South Manchester Community Rehabilitation Pilot Project. Unpublished report, The University of Manchester, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair A, Dickinson E. Effective Practice in Rehabilitation: The Evidence of Systematic Reviews. The King’s Fund, London 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Nocon A, Baldwin S. Trends in Rehabilitation Policy: A Review of the Literature. The King’s Fund, London 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Wade DT, de Jong BA. Recent advances in rehabilitation. British Medical Journal 2000; 320: 1385– 1388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern T. Commissioning rehabilitation services in primary care. Managing Community Care 1998; 6(4): 154– 159.
   Google Scholar
• Trappes-Lomax T. Messages from the front line: joint health and social care rehabilitation. Managing Community Care 1999; 7(4): 33– 37.
   Google Scholar
• Le Mesurier N, Cumella S. Enhancing independence: the effective- ness of re-ablement provision in South Worcestershire. Managing Community Care 1999; 7(4): 27– 32.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson J. Rehabilitation. Managing Community Care 1999; 7(4):39–44.
   Google Scholar
• Kendall E, Buys N, Larner J. Community-based service delivery in rehabilitation: the promise and the paradox. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000; 22(10): 435– 445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 1st edn.California: Sage, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. London: Sage, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Grbich C. Qualitative Research in Health. London: Sage, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Miles MB. Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Improving Access to Cost Effectiveness for Health Care Decision Making: the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, York 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Enderby P, Wade DT. Community rehabilitation in the United Kingdom. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001; 15: 577– 581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley S. Commentary on ‘community based service delivery in rehabilitation: the promise and the paradox’ by Kendall, Buys and Larner. Disability and Rehabilitation 2001; 23(1): 26– 29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis H, Wistow G. Breaking the cycle. Community Care 1996; 5 – 11 December: ii – iv.
   Google Scholar
• Grieg R, Poxton R. Nice process—but did joint commissioning change anyone’s life? Managing Community Care 2001; 9(2): 16– 21.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. National Service Framework for Older People, Standard Three: Intermediate Care. London: Department of Health, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. Special Grant Report on the Promoting Independence: Partnership Grant for 1999/2000. London: Depart- ment of Health, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Eldar R. A conceptual proposal for the study of the quality of rehabilitation care. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000; 22(4): 163 –169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed J, Pearson P, Douglas B, Swinburne S, Wilding H. Going home from hospital – an appreciative inquiry study. Health and Social Care in the Community 2002; 10(1): 36– 45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholes J, Vaughan B. Cross-boundary working: implications for the multiprofessional team. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2002; 11: 399– 408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassah AK. Commentary on: Community-based service delivery in rehabilitation: the promise and the paradox. Disability and Rehabilitation 2001; 23(1): 18– 21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowling A. Research Methods in Health. 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Skeet M. Home from Hospital: The Result of a Survey Conducted Among Recently Discharged Hospital Patients. London: Macmillan Journals, 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Brown K, Gillespie D. Recovering relationships: a feminist analysis of recovery models. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1992; 46(11): 1001– 1005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 34 Department of Health. Intermediate Care. Health Service Circular/ Local Authority Circular HSC 2001/01: LAC(2001)1. London: Department of Health, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell H, Karnon J, Dowie R. Cost analysis of a hospital-at- home initiative using discrete event simulation. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 2001; 6(1): 14– 22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 1994; 16: 103– 121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson K, Roe B. Interviewing older people by telephone following initial contact by postal survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1998; 27: 575– 581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson K, Roe B, Wright L. Telephone or face-to-face interviews?: a decision made on the basis of a pilot study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 1998; 35: 314– 321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar