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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of neurologic physical therapy 2011-06, Vol.35 (2), p.65-74 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |