No abstract

Aim This study aimed to explore perceptions of people with spinal cord injuries regarding the information they received during their rehabilitation programme on post‐injury sexual functioning. Background Spinal cord injury is a traumatic, life‐altering event that is associated with loss of motor and sensory function and sexual impairment. Existing evidence suggests that sexual issues are poorly handled during the rehabilitation phase of the patient's journey. Design A descriptive qualitative design was utilized in this study. Methods Twenty‐nine people with spinal cord injury participated in qualitative in‐depth interviews between November 2017 and April 2018, and data were analysed using the Burnard (1991, https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-y) thematic analysis framework. Results Some participants indicated they were sexually inactive prior to their spinal cord injury. They testified that they had not received information on post‐injury sexual functioning. Many participants who received post‐injury information on sexual functioning reported dissatisfaction with the content and timing of this information. Conclusion Personal conversations between spinal cord injured patients and dedicated members of the interdisciplinary health team can enhance the quality of rehabilitation care and patients' satisfaction with rehabilitation care. Nurses are central clinicians in the rehabilitation programme of spinal cord injured patients and should engage in individually designed conversations about post‐injury sexual functioning.

Patients with spinal cord injuries (SCIs) often have complex needs that require multidisciplinary support in specialist centres. Optimal management depends on seamless transitions between service providers. Delays at any point potentially compromise clinical outcomes and efficient resource utilisation. The Spinal Advisory Working Group aims to develop and implement practical initiatives to improve SCI care, initially focusing on admission and discharge. A literature review identified few relevant papers. In addition, the generalisability of the findings of these papers to SCI centres in the UK is unclear. Therefore, further research is needed to, for example: establish best practice in the UK; quantify the associations between admission criteria and clinical and economic outcomes from a UK perspective; and determine the extent and impact of barriers that influence the transition of SCI patients between NHS care providers. Such research would enable the development of evidence-based strategies to overcome or minimise these barriers. In the meantime, pragmatic consensus guidelines would help standardise management, aid service optimisation, overcome inequities and, potentially, reduce bed blocking. The working group agreed that the robust inclusion and exclusion criteria developed by the Welsh Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Centre could form the basis of a consensus guideline, to be piloted across the five SCI centres represented by members of the group.