Outcome Measures in Neurological Physical Therapy Practice: Part II. A Patient-Centered Process

Physical therapists working in neurological practice must make choices about which standardized outcome measures are most appropriate for each patient. Significant time constraints in the clinic limit the number of measures that one can reasonably administer. Therapists must choose measures that wil...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of neurologic physical therapy 2011-06, Vol.35 (2), p.65-74
Hauptverfasser: Sullivan, Jane E, Andrews, A Williams, Lanzino, Desiree, Peron, Aimee, Potter, Kirsten A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 74
container_issue 2
container_start_page 65
container_title Journal of neurologic physical therapy
container_volume 35
creator Sullivan, Jane E
Andrews, A Williams
Lanzino, Desiree
Peron, Aimee
Potter, Kirsten A
description Physical therapists working in neurological practice must make choices about which standardized outcome measures are most appropriate for each patient. Significant time constraints in the clinic limit the number of measures that one can reasonably administer. Therapists must choose measures that will provide results that guide the selection of appropriate interventions and are likely to show clinically meaningful change. Therefore, therapists must be able to compare the merits of available measures to identify those that are most relevant for each patient and setting. This article describes a process for selecting outcome measures and illustrates the use of that process with a patient who has had a stroke. The link between selecting objective outcome measures and tracking patient progress is emphasized. Comparisons are made between 2 motor function measures (the Fugl-Meyer Assessment [FMA] of Physical Performance vs the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement), and 2 balance measures (Berg Balance Scale vs the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale). The use of objective outcome measures allows therapists to quantify information that previously had been described in subjective terms. This allows the tracking of progress, and the comparison of effectiveness and costs across interventions, settings, providers, and patient characteristics.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/NPT.0b013e31821a24eb
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_880045669</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2411443211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3263-8ae12a2d01dfa83940e5f4adfd8e824157088b3019fd131e749b1aec1b88ec5c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkMlOwzAQhi0EYn8DhMKJU8qM7SQON1SxVGLpoZwtx5nQQFoXOxHq22N2icN4_sM3M9bH2BHCCKEszu6nsxFUgIIEKo6GS6o22C5mWZFCpuTmby7yHbYXwjMAL2RRbrMdjqWQIsddph-G3roFJXdkwuApJO0yuafBu849tdZ0yXS-Dp9hNidvVutk6o3tW0vnydT4PplMRslFjH1Lyz4dx4c81ZFylkI4YFuN6QIdfvd99nh1ORvfpLcP15PxxW1qBc9FqgwhN7wGrBujRCmBskaauqkVKS4xK0CpSgCWTY0CqZBlhYYsVkqRzazYZydfe1fevQ4Ueu1p5XwftFIAMsvzMjKn_5hFGyx1nVmSGyJZioIDIkZSfpHWuxA8NXrl24Xxa42gP-zraF__tx_Hjr8PDNWC6t-hH91_e99cFzWFl254I6_nZLp-rgF5JkDl6ccnIAeANBYI8Q5o-5Aq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>893720111</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Outcome Measures in Neurological Physical Therapy Practice: Part II. A Patient-Centered Process</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Sullivan, Jane E ; Andrews, A Williams ; Lanzino, Desiree ; Peron, Aimee ; Potter, Kirsten A</creator><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Jane E ; Andrews, A Williams ; Lanzino, Desiree ; Peron, Aimee ; Potter, Kirsten A</creatorcontrib><description>Physical therapists working in neurological practice must make choices about which standardized outcome measures are most appropriate for each patient. Significant time constraints in the clinic limit the number of measures that one can reasonably administer. Therapists must choose measures that will provide results that guide the selection of appropriate interventions and are likely to show clinically meaningful change. Therefore, therapists must be able to compare the merits of available measures to identify those that are most relevant for each patient and setting. This article describes a process for selecting outcome measures and illustrates the use of that process with a patient who has had a stroke. The link between selecting objective outcome measures and tracking patient progress is emphasized. Comparisons are made between 2 motor function measures (the Fugl-Meyer Assessment [FMA] of Physical Performance vs the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement), and 2 balance measures (Berg Balance Scale vs the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale). The use of objective outcome measures allows therapists to quantify information that previously had been described in subjective terms. This allows the tracking of progress, and the comparison of effectiveness and costs across interventions, settings, providers, and patient characteristics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1557-0576</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-0584</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e31821a24eb</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21934361</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Neurology Section, APTA</publisher><subject>Clinical medicine ; Humans ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Patients ; Physical Examination ; Physical Therapists ; Physical therapy ; Physical Therapy Modalities ; Professional-Patient Relations ; Recovery of Function ; Stroke ; Stroke Rehabilitation ; Therapists ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of neurologic physical therapy, 2011-06, Vol.35 (2), p.65-74</ispartof><rights>2011 Neurology Section, APTA</rights><rights>Copyright Neurology Section - American Physical Therapy Association Jun 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3263-8ae12a2d01dfa83940e5f4adfd8e824157088b3019fd131e749b1aec1b88ec5c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21934361$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Jane E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrews, A Williams</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanzino, Desiree</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peron, Aimee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potter, Kirsten A</creatorcontrib><title>Outcome Measures in Neurological Physical Therapy Practice: Part II. A Patient-Centered Process</title><title>Journal of neurologic physical therapy</title><addtitle>J Neurol Phys Ther</addtitle><description>Physical therapists working in neurological practice must make choices about which standardized outcome measures are most appropriate for each patient. Significant time constraints in the clinic limit the number of measures that one can reasonably administer. Therapists must choose measures that will provide results that guide the selection of appropriate interventions and are likely to show clinically meaningful change. Therefore, therapists must be able to compare the merits of available measures to identify those that are most relevant for each patient and setting. This article describes a process for selecting outcome measures and illustrates the use of that process with a patient who has had a stroke. The link between selecting objective outcome measures and tracking patient progress is emphasized. Comparisons are made between 2 motor function measures (the Fugl-Meyer Assessment [FMA] of Physical Performance vs the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement), and 2 balance measures (Berg Balance Scale vs the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale). The use of objective outcome measures allows therapists to quantify information that previously had been described in subjective terms. This allows the tracking of progress, and the comparison of effectiveness and costs across interventions, settings, providers, and patient characteristics.</description><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care)</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical Examination</subject><subject>Physical Therapists</subject><subject>Physical therapy</subject><subject>Physical Therapy Modalities</subject><subject>Professional-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Recovery of Function</subject><subject>Stroke</subject><subject>Stroke Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Therapists</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1557-0576</issn><issn>1557-0584</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkMlOwzAQhi0EYn8DhMKJU8qM7SQON1SxVGLpoZwtx5nQQFoXOxHq22N2icN4_sM3M9bH2BHCCKEszu6nsxFUgIIEKo6GS6o22C5mWZFCpuTmby7yHbYXwjMAL2RRbrMdjqWQIsddph-G3roFJXdkwuApJO0yuafBu849tdZ0yXS-Dp9hNidvVutk6o3tW0vnydT4PplMRslFjH1Lyz4dx4c81ZFylkI4YFuN6QIdfvd99nh1ORvfpLcP15PxxW1qBc9FqgwhN7wGrBujRCmBskaauqkVKS4xK0CpSgCWTY0CqZBlhYYsVkqRzazYZydfe1fevQ4Ueu1p5XwftFIAMsvzMjKn_5hFGyx1nVmSGyJZioIDIkZSfpHWuxA8NXrl24Xxa42gP-zraF__tx_Hjr8PDNWC6t-hH91_e99cFzWFl254I6_nZLp-rgF5JkDl6ccnIAeANBYI8Q5o-5Aq</recordid><startdate>201106</startdate><enddate>201106</enddate><creator>Sullivan, Jane E</creator><creator>Andrews, A Williams</creator><creator>Lanzino, Desiree</creator><creator>Peron, Aimee</creator><creator>Potter, Kirsten A</creator><general>Neurology Section, APTA</general><general>Neurology Section - American Physical Therapy Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201106</creationdate><title>Outcome Measures in Neurological Physical Therapy Practice: Part II. A Patient-Centered Process</title><author>Sullivan, Jane E ; Andrews, A Williams ; Lanzino, Desiree ; Peron, Aimee ; Potter, Kirsten A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3263-8ae12a2d01dfa83940e5f4adfd8e824157088b3019fd131e749b1aec1b88ec5c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care)</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical Examination</topic><topic>Physical Therapists</topic><topic>Physical therapy</topic><topic>Physical Therapy Modalities</topic><topic>Professional-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Recovery of Function</topic><topic>Stroke</topic><topic>Stroke Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Therapists</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Jane E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrews, A Williams</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanzino, Desiree</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peron, Aimee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potter, Kirsten A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>Journal of neurologic physical therapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sullivan, Jane E</au><au>Andrews, A Williams</au><au>Lanzino, Desiree</au><au>Peron, Aimee</au><au>Potter, Kirsten A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Outcome Measures in Neurological Physical Therapy Practice: Part II. A Patient-Centered Process</atitle><jtitle>Journal of neurologic physical therapy</jtitle><addtitle>J Neurol Phys Ther</addtitle><date>2011-06</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>65</spage><epage>74</epage><pages>65-74</pages><issn>1557-0576</issn><eissn>1557-0584</eissn><abstract>Physical therapists working in neurological practice must make choices about which standardized outcome measures are most appropriate for each patient. Significant time constraints in the clinic limit the number of measures that one can reasonably administer. Therapists must choose measures that will provide results that guide the selection of appropriate interventions and are likely to show clinically meaningful change. Therefore, therapists must be able to compare the merits of available measures to identify those that are most relevant for each patient and setting. This article describes a process for selecting outcome measures and illustrates the use of that process with a patient who has had a stroke. The link between selecting objective outcome measures and tracking patient progress is emphasized. Comparisons are made between 2 motor function measures (the Fugl-Meyer Assessment [FMA] of Physical Performance vs the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement), and 2 balance measures (Berg Balance Scale vs the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale). The use of objective outcome measures allows therapists to quantify information that previously had been described in subjective terms. This allows the tracking of progress, and the comparison of effectiveness and costs across interventions, settings, providers, and patient characteristics.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Neurology Section, APTA</pub><pmid>21934361</pmid><doi>10.1097/NPT.0b013e31821a24eb</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1557-0576
ispartof Journal of neurologic physical therapy, 2011-06, Vol.35 (2), p.65-74
issn 1557-0576
1557-0584
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_reports_880045669
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Clinical medicine
Humans
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Patients
Physical Examination
Physical Therapists
Physical therapy
Physical Therapy Modalities
Professional-Patient Relations
Recovery of Function
Stroke
Stroke Rehabilitation
Therapists
Treatment Outcome
title Outcome Measures in Neurological Physical Therapy Practice: Part II. A Patient-Centered Process
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T10%3A50%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Outcome%20Measures%20in%20Neurological%20Physical%20Therapy%20Practice:%20Part%20II.%20A%20Patient-Centered%20Process&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20neurologic%20physical%20therapy&rft.au=Sullivan,%20Jane%20E&rft.date=2011-06&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=65&rft.epage=74&rft.pages=65-74&rft.issn=1557-0576&rft.eissn=1557-0584&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/NPT.0b013e31821a24eb&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2411443211%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=893720111&rft_id=info:pmid/21934361&rfr_iscdi=true