Research

Case management for people with acquired brain injury involves complex decisions at every stage: about needs, services, and what a meaningful recovery can look like. Those decisions should be grounded in evidence, not habit or assumption.

The evidence base for brain injury case management is still developing. A systematic review by Lannin et al. (2014) found that coordinated, ongoing support across the continuum of care produces positive outcomes, though rigorous trial evidence remains limited. More recently, Leonard, Linden and Holloway (2025) synthesised 35 studies and concluded that case management plays a central role in supporting survivors of acquired brain injury, while calling for better outcome measurement to strengthen the field’s research foundations.

Rather than discouraging me, that gap is what drives my research. My doctoral work at Plymouth Marjon University investigates children and adolescents with acquired brain injury. Paediatric brain injury is complex, and its sequelae remain poorly understood by those outside the field. Brain injury survivors need the people working with them to understand what the evidence actually shows. That is a clinical problem and a research problem at the same time.

This is why clinical practice and research belong together. My work as a case manager shapes my research questions; my research keeps my practice sharp. Both are guided by the same principle: what we do for clients should be justified by the best available evidence, applied with professional judgement, and measured against outcomes that matter to the people at the centre.

Membership of BABICM and RCOT reflects a commitment to those standards as an ongoing obligation, not a credential.