HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schenkman, M. Articles by Gill-Body, K. M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schenkman, M. Articles by Gill-Body, K. M Related Collections Neurology/Neuromuscular System: Other Clinical Decision Making Diagnosis/Prognosis: Other Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

An Integrated Framework for Decision Making in Neurologic Physical Therapist Practice

M Schenkman, PT, PhD, is Professor and Director, Physical Therapy Program, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO 80262 (USA)
JE Deutsch, PT, PhD, is Professor and Director of the Rivers Lab, Graduate Programs in Physical Therapy Program, Department of Developmental and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ
KM Gill-Body, PT, DPT, NCS, is Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, Graduate Programs in Physical Therapy, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, Mass

Address all correspondence to Dr Schenkman at: margaret.schenkman{at}uchsc.edu

Submitted August 18, 2005; Accepted July 14, 2006

	Abstract

 
Decision-making frameworks are used by clinicians to guide patient management, communicate with other health care providers, and educate patients and their families. A number of frameworks have been applied to guide clinical practice, but none are comprehensive in terms of patient management. This article proposes a unifying framework for application to decision making in the management of individuals who have neurologic dysfunction. The framework integrates both enablement and disablement perspectives. The framework has the following attributes: (1) it is patient-centered, (2) it is anchored by the patient/client management model from the Guide for Physical Therapist Practice, (3) it incorporates the Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians (HOAC) at every step, and (4) it proposes a systematic approach to task analysis for interpretation of movement dysfunction. This framework provides a mechanism for making clinical decisions, developing clinical hypotheses, and formulating a plan of care. Application of the framework is illustrated with a case example of an individual with neurologic dysfunction.

Key Words: Clinical decision making • Models • Neurologic dysfunction

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
Decision-making frameworks are instrumental in guiding clinicians through a comprehensive process of patient management, communicating with other health care providers, and facilitating the educational process. A number of frameworks have been applied to clinical practice over the past 2 decades for guiding clinical decision making.^1–7 Early frameworks were based on disablement models.^8–10 Subsequently, other frameworks were described based on enablement perspectives.^11,12 Most recently, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)¹³ was developed, integrating both enablement and disablement perspectives.¹⁴ These various frameworks were intended to organize aspects of the patient’s health condition for research, policy, and related decisions. However, for clinical care within physical therapy, no one framework provides enough detail for decision making. For this purpose, it is important to separate out specific components of enablement and disablement and to analyze their implications for patient management.

The framework proposed in this article is designed to link the larger concepts of health (enablement and disablement) to the scope of physical therapist practice. The framework is intended to guide physical therapist practice and to provide a structure for teaching clinical decision making to future clinicians. Specifically, this article accomplishes the following:

1. It presents a unifying framework for making clinical decisions by integrating and applying a variety of conceptual models and analyses at different points within the management process.
   
2. It proposes a systematic approach to task analysis for summarizing the movement problem.
   
3. It illustrates how the generation of clinical hypotheses and their progressive refinement drives management choices.
   
4. It uses a case example to illustrate application of the unifying framework and systematic task analysis.
   

	Overview of the Framework

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
The decision-making process we describe is patient centered,^15–18 which means that the whole process is focused around the patient as depicted in Figure 1. This patient-centered approach contrasts with a pathology-driven approach in which the process is initiated with disease and culminates in disablement. The patient-centered approach that we propose emphasizes roles and functions of which the individual is capable and at the same time identifies limitations in the individual’s abilities, with the goal of minimizing barriers to full participation within society or the environment.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Overview of the unifying framework demonstrating the steps in the clinical decision-making process. This framework is patient centered, integrates both enablement and disablement perspectives, and incorporates a variety of existing conceptual models and analyses at various points in the patient management process. HOAC=Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians.

This framework was developed to provide a comprehensive approach to physical therapy, which can be used to guide clinical decisions and can be used to structure the education of future clinicians. In the following sections of this article, we elaborate on application of the framework for the management of individuals who have neurologic disorders. Although this article focuses on people with neurologic dysfunction, the framework also should be applicable across the life span to people who have other conditions.

	History and Interview

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
The purpose of the history and interview is to gain an understanding of the patient as an individual, determine why the individual seeks physical therapy, identify what he or she hopes to achieve through physical therapy, and begin to formulate the examination strategy. The interview and history process initiates the collaborative relationship between the patient and the physical therapist.

The interview begins by exploring questions such as the following: What is the person’s role in society, and how is that affected by the current condition? Specifically, what does the person do vocationally and for recreation? What are the patient’s goals and identified problems? What is it that the patient wants to be able to do that he or she currently cannot do; in the patient’s view, what is needed to overcome these functional limitations? What assistance does the patient expect from the clinician? What assistance does the patient need from the family or caregivers? What assistance do the family or caregivers need from the clinician? The patient is the primary source for this information, but caregivers also contribute; their perspective may be different from the patient’s perspective and also is important to include.²¹ This process begins during the interview and is further developed during the examination.

In the proposed framework, the interview process draws on enablement and disablement perspectives as well as the HOAC. To understand the proposed framework, it is necessary to highlight salient features from these approaches.

Application of the Enablement Perspective

The enablement model, as described by Quinn and Gordon,⁷ guides the clinician to identify the individual’s participation and roles, including self-care, social, occupational, and recreational activities. The enablement model also explores the skills and resources that are required for fulfilling roles within different environmental contexts (eg, the ability to achieve meaningful goals with efficiency, flexibility, and consistency). Quinn and Gordon defined resources as "physical and cognitive mechanisms, including musculoskeletal linkages, control of basic movement types and the ability to plan."^7(p7) In applying Quinn and Gordon’s enablement concepts to our integrated framework, we broaden the concept of resources to also include the social, emotional, and societal resources at the patient’s disposal.

Application of the Disablement Perspective

The disablement models begin the analysis from the underlying disease or pathology.^8,9 Relevant information is revealed during the patient’s report of past medical history, and review of the medical record guides specific questions during the interview. Specific questions also are derived from knowledge about pathology and typical or predicted signs, symptoms, and impairments associated with these conditions. The clinician’s questions elicit information from the patient regarding the presence and severity of these signs, symptoms, and impairments. This information guides the systems review and selection of examination procedures. Patients may identify underlying impairments that they perceive as limiting (eg, weakness, stiffness, loss of feeling, pain). The clinician may identify possible impairments through observation and communication (eg, faulty movement patterns, cognitive impairments).

Application of the HOAC

The HOAC^1,20 is an algorithm that allows the clinician to explore the patient’s concerns, referred to as the "patient-identified problems" (PIPs). The clinician also explores problems not identified by the patient but rather by the clinician and caregivers. These problems are referred to as "non–patient-identified problems" (N-PIPs). The clinician’s perspective can be particularly important in identifying potential future problems (prevention) and in identifying functional limitations and underlying impairments that have not risen to the level of the patient’s awareness, but may become progressively limiting. The HOAC also prompts the clinician to begin to develop hypotheses surrounding identified problems throughout the interview process. These hypotheses shape the plan for further patient examination.

Integration of Perspectives From Enablement, Disablement, and HOAC

To illustrate how the models are integrated, we describe the following scenario where questions from each perspective are asked. First, the physical therapist asks the patient to identify his or her societal roles and any problems he or she has in fulfilling them (eg, problems, goals of treatment [enablement and HOAC]). The physical therapist also solicits input from family members and caregivers (HOAC). The physical therapist then explores the specific abilities and skills that the patient needs to fulfill the identified goals and ascertains those areas in which the patient experiences difficulty (enablement). This initial process is accomplished without consideration of the primary diagnosis or past medical history. When the physical therapist has completed this portion of the history and interview, it should be possible to answer the following questions:

• What are the patient’s needs in terms of participation and activity?
  
• Why is the patient here (problem and goals)?
  
• What can the family offer?
  
• What are the perceived needs of the family?
  
• What is the patient’s social, emotional, and physical context?
  

The clinician should be able to answer the above questions prior to analyzing the patient’s condition from a disablement perspective. From the disablement perspective, the physical therapist explores underlying impairments that could contribute to the patient’s functional difficulties, based on knowledge of the pathology and its sequelae. For example, the physical therapist proceeds with specific questions aimed at detecting the patient’s signs, symptoms, and impairments relevant to the disorder. All of this information, taken together, informs the examination strategy.

Transition From Interview to Systems Review

During the history and interview, the clinician begins to formulate hypotheses that guide the transition into the systems review and examination (HOAC). For example, the clinician may observe cognitive or perceptual limitations that indicate the need for a detailed examination of these systems. The clinician may observe that a patient transitions to and from a seated position and walks with a gait pattern typical of someone with intact sensory and motor systems, suggesting that these systems need not be examined in detail at the present time. Conversely, the clinician might observe that another individual always transitions to a standing position by pushing up from arm rests and does not take weight symmetrically through both lower extremities. Depending on the patient’s diagnosis and premorbid and comorbid conditions, the patient’s task performance could suggest pain, loss of lower-extremity range of motion, weakness, impaired sensory perception, or impaired motor organization. These observations, along with knowledge of the disorder, guide the clinician to specific choices of tests, measures, or activities to be included in the systems review.

	Systems Review

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
The purpose of the systems review is to rule out those body systems with which the physical therapist need not be concerned, identify systems that are resources for the patient, guide choices regarding which aspects of the remaining systems to examine in detail, and determine whether the physical therapist should proceed or should refer the patient to other health care providers. The systems review can be conducted at the level of tasks or the level of impairments, as is illustrated below.

The patient/client management model¹⁹ is used to organize the overall systems review. Included is a review of arousal, attention, and cognition, as well as a minimum data set (eg, height, weight, heart rate after some specific activity such as push-ups for an individual with spinal cord injury). Four major body systems are reviewed, related to the physical therapist practice patterns, including neurologic, musculoskeletal, cardiopulmonary, and integumentary.

The systems review can be carried out at the level of tasks or level of impairments, or some combination of these 2 levels. Reviewing of body systems at the level of tasks has the advantage of emphasizing the patient-centered focus. For this reason, we begin by describing that process.

Systems Review at the Level of Tasks

When beginning the systems review by examining tasks, the clinician analyzes the patient’s overall performance on specific relevant tasks to develop hypotheses about which impairments should be examined in detail. If the patient’s performance of a task is outside the typical performance range for the age and sex of the patient, the clinician proceeds to examine those specific underlying impairments associated with problems with performance of the task (eg, strength [force-generating capacity of a muscle], range of motion, postural control). In the systems review, screening is conducted in a variety of ways, including the use of measurable tasks as well as observational analyses.

With regard to quantitative approaches to screening tasks, performance on a number of tasks has well-defined implications. For example, the Timed "Up & Go" Test, Functional Reach Test, and Berg Balance Test all can predict falls.^22–24 If the patient has difficulty with performance on these tasks, the clinician is alerted to perform a detailed examination of sensory and motor organization. However, if performance is within the normal range on any of these measures, it may not be necessary to assess specific elements of postural control (or balance) such as sensory organization. Similarly, the Six-Minute Walk Test²⁵ can be used to identify potential problems with cardiovascular or musculoskeletal endurance that need to be further examined.

Observational task analysis also can be used in the systems review. For example, requirements for the sit-to-stand task include force generation of specific muscle groups, range of motion at specific joints, and balance and postural control.^26–28 The clinician might ask a patient to stand from a low seat in order to quickly obtain an assessment of lower-extremity strength and balance control. If the patient has difficulty performing the task, the clinician could be guided to include a detailed assessment of strength and postural control in the examination. Alternatively, if the patient is able to rise to a standing position successfully and smoothly, the clinician may logically conclude that lower-extremity strength is, at a minimum, in the "fair" range and that postural control is adequate for this task. The clinician then may chose to defer detailed examination of these areas.

Systems Review at the Level of Impairments

The clinician also can choose to begin the systems review by examining specific impairments. Examination of impairments can draw on a variety of standard tests and measures (eg, reflexes, range of motion, muscle performance, sensory integrity), many of which are well articulated in the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice.¹⁹ Impairments also can be measured using standardized tests such as the Orpington test,²⁹ which measures 4 areas: motor deficit of the arm, proprioception, balance, and cognition. The scores can be summarized to identify disease severity. Additionally, looking at test scores in each of the domains of the test may guide the clinician to perform a more detailed examination.

Models That Inform the Systems Review

In contrast to the interview, where the enablement perspective leads off the process, the systems review is more heavily focused on a disablement perspective. This is because a major purpose of the systems review is to identify those systems that are impaired.

A number of disablement models provide guidance regarding systems that are likely to be compromised with specific diseases, injuries, or disorders. These disablement models include, but are not limited to, the World Health Organization (WHO) model⁸ and the Nagi model.⁹ The work of Verbrugge and Jette¹⁰ draws attention to factors that should be reviewed as a result of previous medical history (comorbid conditions). For example, when an individual is admitted with a stroke and a previous history of diabetes mellitus, it is particularly important to screen for impairments associated with diabetes (eg, sensory and integumentary integrity of the distal extremities). When an individual has worked in the mines throughout his adult life, it is particularly important to carefully review the respiratory system.

Schenkman and Butler² further elaborated on the disablement models to make them applicable to clinical decision making for neurologic physical therapist practice. To this end, the models of Schenkman and colleagues^2,3,5 draw attention to systems that may be impaired as sequelae of the injury or disorder for which the patient seeks treatment. For example, an individual who sustained a stroke some years ago and was sedentary thereafter is likely to have secondary cardiovascular deconditioning.³⁰ An individual with Parkinson disease (PD) is likely to have lost substantial range of motion in the axial structures.^31,32 Schenkman and colleagues have applied this model to patients with PD, and the model has been tested in several experimental studies, demonstrating relationships between range of motion and both functional and kinematic measures of standing reach as well as improvement of functional reach following use of exercises to improve axial range of motion.^31–33

In contrast, the enablement model draws attention to physiologic reserves that may be resources to the patient. For example, compared with more sedentary individuals, the distance runner may have substantial cardiovascular reserve and the practitioner of yoga may have enhanced flexibility. Hypotheses regarding the presence and extent of physiological reserves can be tested in the systems review or during the examination.

On completion of the initial systems review, the physical therapist should be able to accomplish the following specific tasks associated with disablement:

• Arousal, attention, and cognition:
  • Determine the appropriate style of interaction with this patient and the need to modify further examination or intervention procedures.
    
  • Identify the need for further examination (eg, Mini-Mental State Exam).
    
  
  
• The primary disorder:
  • Rule out potential problems and issues that could occur with patient’s primary disorder but do not exist for this particular patient.
    
  • Identify those body systems that are impaired and need further examination to determine the severity of involvement.
    
  • Determine which specific impairments will be examined.
    
  
  
• Impairments associated with comorbid conditions (pathology or disease)¹⁰:
  • Determine which specific impairments will be examined in-depth, based on factors such as age, recreational activities, and work history.
    
  
  
• Secondary impairments²:
  • Identify which impairments are present among those that typically occur as sequelae to the primary disorder in systems other than the one for which the patient sought physical therapy care.
    
  
  

• Communication
  • Determine the patient’s preferred style of communication and learning.
    
  
  
• Resources
  • Identify those systems that are particularly well developed for the patient and can be or are used to facilitate functional ability.
    
  
  

Transition From Systems Review to Examination

As information is gathered during the systems review, the clinician integrates findings with those obtained during the history and continues to develop clinical hypotheses. These hypotheses may explain relationships among existing impairments and functional abilities; hypotheses also may identify key issues that should be examined related to the patient’s environment. For example, the clinician may make decisions about which tasks to examine further and how to manipulate the environment during further examination. Additionally, the clinician often develops initial hypotheses about prognosis.

	Examination

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
The specific purposes of the examination may vary and depend on the reason for which it is carried out. The level of examination is adjusted to reflect patient-identified problems and goals and can be drawn from elements of the continuum of the ICF model. For example, the examination takes into account relevant resources (enablement), activities, participation, and quality of life, as well as underlying impairments (disablement). For the purposes of this discussion, a distinction is made between the initial examination and subsequent re-examination, although examination takes place throughout the patient management process.^1,20

The initial examination provides data that can be used to accomplish some or all of the following purposes: (1) perform triage (eg, to determine whether referral to another health care professional is needed), (2) describe the movement problem for key tasks that are meaningful to the patient within a relevant environmental context (eg, walking in the dark; crawling across the carpet), (3) identify patient’s resources and impairments, (4) test hypotheses from the history and systems review, and (5) formulate prognoses (eg, expected degree of recovery following a stroke, expected developmental problems following premature birth). In addition, the examination leads to the ability to provide a basis from which to determine the approach to the plan of care and to determine potential outcome measures.

Subsequent re-examination includes the following purposes: (1) test existing hypotheses, (2) develop and test new clinical hypotheses when the initial hypotheses are not supported by the patient’s response to intervention, and (3) obtain specific outcome measurements.

As the clinician proceeds through the examination process, there is an ongoing synthesis and analysis, as outlined by the HOAC.¹ Information from one set of tests provides guidance regarding the next logical choices of tests and measures. This ongoing analysis complements, but does not replace, the overall synthesis of findings that occurs in the evaluation.

The strategy and depth of the examination may vary, depending on the purposes. Relevant issues to consider include the patient’s level of function, the purposes of the examination (eg, prognosis, plan of care), and the clinician’s preferred style. The purposes of the examination also set specific limits regarding what information will be obtained. For example, if the sole purpose is for formulation of a prognosis, the clinician may select a specific focused examination approach (eg, the Fugl-Meyer examination to predict recovery from stroke,³⁴ the Gross Motor Function Classification to predict function in children with cerebral palsy,³⁵ Glasgow Coma Scale to predict outcome after traumatic brain injury³⁶). If the purpose is to develop a plan of care and measure outcomes, the clinician might chose measures such as the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)³⁷ or functional measures for children such as the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) or the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM),^34,38–41 all of which are sensitive to change.

For purposes of developing a plan of care, the following information should be obtained:

• Level of independence or dependence for functional activities of greatest importance to the patient, including level of assistance needed, use of external devices, or environmental modifications;
  
• Analysis of task performance for a variety of functional activities under various environmental conditions; and
  
• Possible reasons underlying the difficulty or inability to perform the task, including relevant impairments and environmental barriers.
  

The examination begins by observation of functional activities (eg, walking, getting up from a bed or a chair). The clinician decides the order in which the examination data will be obtained. For example, the clinician might begin with a detailed task analysis of specific functional activities and work backward toward underlying resources and impairments. Using this approach, the clinician performs the detailed task analysis, develops hypotheses related to likely underlying impairments, and proceeds with the specific tests and measures that are most likely to identify the presence and severity of existing impairments. This detailed task analysis is more specific and systematic than the task analysis used during the systems review, as is illustrated below.

The use of task analysis to make judgments during the examination requires knowledge of the literature linking performance and impairments and clinical experience to recognize patterns of performance and their implications regarding underlying impairments. Therefore, this strategy may be difficult for the novice clinician.

Alternatively, the clinician might begin by examining those impairments identified during the systems review as well as those known to occur with the specific underlying disorder and its sequelae, as well as comorbid conditions. The clinician might proceed next to a detailed analysis of task performance. Using this route into the examination process, the clinician works forward from impairments to ability to perform functional tasks.

Whatever examination approach is used, the clinician is judicious in determining what should be examined so that the maximum information can be obtained from the fewest possible tests and measures. To make judgments, the clinician draws from the patient’s problems and goals, the clinician’s knowledge of the disorder, and premorbid and comorbid conditions. In reality, examination often proceeds as a combination of these 2 approaches. For clarity, however, these 2 approaches are discussed as distinct processes beginning with task analysis.

Examination at the Level of Task Analysis

Task analysis is a detailed observational analysis of the patient’s total body movement patterns during task performance.⁴² Task analysis helps clinicians to determine whether the patient’s movement performance is within a range of typical performance and to determine where within the performance specific problems occur. The results of the task analysis shape the plan of care, which typically is focused around improvement of function.

As movement specialists,^43,44 it is incumbent upon physical therapists to analyze movement. Task analysis (Fig. 2) is the route through which the physical therapist carries out this central aspect of physical therapist practice. Indeed, task analysis is one of the skills that defines the physical therapist, and therefore synthesizes many of the skills taught throughout the physical therapy curriculum.

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. The elements of task analysis. The environment and temporal sequence are 2 elements of the task analysis that are applicable to all tasks. Strategies and phases of movement, elements that are task specific, may add useful information to the systematic task analysis.

Task and environment.
Performance of a task can vary substantially, depending on the conditions under which it is performed.⁴⁹ For this reason, it is important to examine tasks under conditions comparable to those in which the individual typically functions. Tasks can be described or categorized in many ways. In the proposed model, the task and environment are categorized as follows, based on 4 conditions adapted and simplified from the work of Gentile.⁴⁵ Two variables are manipulated: the individual and the environment. The 4 task and environment categories that we suggest using are:

1. Stationary individual in a stationary environment (eg, sitting quietly on a treatment mat in a quiet treatment area).
   
2. Moving individual in a stationary environment (eg, walking in a quiet treatment area).
   
3. Stationary individual in a moving environment (eg, standing still in a busy clinic environment).
   
4. Moving individual in a moving environment (eg, walking in a busy clinic environment).
   

We suggest that the first step in task analysis, then, is to categorize the tasks included in the examination into 1 of these 4 categories.

Other terms describing task attributes also may be useful to consider as the clinician performs the systematic task analysis. For example, tasks can be categorized as discrete with a recognizable beginning and end (eg, coming from a standing position to a sitting position), continuous with no discernable beginning or end (eg, walking), or serial with discrete movements performed sequentially (eg, coming from sitting in an armchair to standing, walking, turning, and sitting at the kitchen table).^48(p5)

To categorize tasks using this simplified version of Gentile’s taxonomy,⁴⁵ we consider all of the relevant attributes of the task and the environment that go into the completion of the task. Included are considerations such as the support surface (eg, height, compliance), base of support, lighting, use of arms, and assistive devices. For example, walking on the beach with a cane is very different in terms of environment and task performance than walking in the physical therapy gym; the relevant sensory, motor, perceptual, and cognitive issues must be taken into account.

Categorization of the task and environment as we propose provides critical information regarding the types of tasks and environmental conditions under which a patient may be experiencing difficulty with functional abilities during daily activities. However, clinicians also need to identify where within performance of the task the difficulty occurs. For this purpose, we propose the use of a temporal sequence to analyze the movements that comprise the task as outlined by Hedman and colleagues.^46,47 It is important to note that, as with the work of Gentile,⁴⁵ we are highlighting selective aspects of their work.

Temporal sequence.
Hedman and colleagues^46,47 proposed that task analysis can be conducted by considering the temporal sequence of movements that comprise the task. Use of this approach directs clinical decision making. Applying their concepts to our model, we ask the following questions:

• What is the problem with completing the task?
  
• Where along the movement continuum does the problem interfere with function?
  
• What are the underlying determinants of the problem?
  
• How do we intervene?
  

From concepts of Hedman and colleagues,^46,47 performance of any task can be differentiated into the following 5 stages of movement: initial conditions, preparation, initiation, execution, and termination (Fig. 3). Features that influence performance of the tasks are described at these specific points in the temporal sequence (including timing, direction, amplitude, and smoothness of movement). This observational analysis guides the clinician to specifically target the stages within the temporal sequence of the task where the movement is compromised (eg, initial conditions versus termination) and to generate ideas for intervention. Additionally, this observational analysis guides the clinician to identify the nature of the problem with movement (eg, direction, amplitude) at each stage in the temporal sequence, further refining decisions regarding the optimal approach to intervention.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. The temporal sequence identifies 5 stages of task performance that can be considered during task analysis and the specific features of importance for each stage. Reprinted with permission of the publisher from: Hedman LD, Rogers MW, Hanke TA. Neurologic professional education: lining the foundation science of motor control with physical therapy interventions for movement dysfunction. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 1996;20:9–13.

Determinants (impairments) are considered at each stage in the temporal sequence of the task to guide decisions regarding which impairments to examine in detail. Identification of the contributing impairments eventually helps the clinician to determine optimal interventions. For example, if force production is one of the main causes of difficulty with the execution stage during the sitting-to-standing activity, it may be necessary to include interventions that improve force production.

Analysis of individual impairments in isolation may only partially explain difficulty with task performance. For example, just because a muscle can fire, does not mean that it will fire in the appropriate synergistic combination during performance of a task. Appropriate synergistic firing of muscles can be problematic for any patient and can be of particular concern for those with underlying neurologic dysfunction. For this reason, it can be important to examine synergistic coordination of muscle groups.

The coordination of synergistic groups of muscles has some overlap with Hedman and colleagues’ concept of determinants of movement,^46,47 but goes beyond those concepts. From a kinesiological perspective, purposeful, functional movement is accomplished by coordination of muscle groups throughout the body. Included are prime movers, secondary movers, synergists (helping and stabilizing), and whole-body stabilizers.⁵⁰ With neurologic injury, appropriate coordination of these various muscle groups is frequently disrupted. At times, individuals have the ability to produce adequate force when muscles are examined in isolation, but they are unable to produce force in appropriate synergistic combinations during functional activities. Conversely, it may be possible to produce force in a muscle group only during whole-body movements (or in combination with other muscle groups) but not during isolated limb or joint movements. Thus, examination of force production in isolation may not be adequate to fully identify the underlying causes of movement dysfunction. When patterns of movement appear inappropriate or inefficient for the task, the clinician can use observational and manual skills to determine which muscles within a synergistic combination are likely participating and which are not. This important part of the analysis of movement has not received much attention in recent literature and, as a consequence, may be overlooked.

The coordination of synergistic activity can be analyzed in a systematic fashion, drawing from principles of biomechanics and kinesiology, beginning with the ability to stabilize against gravity, move while in relatively supported positions (eg, recumbent, sitting), and move while in relatively unsupported positions (eg, standing), and progressing to the coordination of complex transitional movements (eg, walking, reading). Results of the analysis of synergistic coordination can guide the clinician in making decisions about which aspects of the coordination of synergistic activity to emphasize within the intervention (ie, the ability to stabilize, shift weight while remaining stable, shift weight while in less stable positions, or coordinate complex transitional movements). The clinician determines whether problems with synergistic coordination are observed at only one or at several of the following points in the temporal sequence: initiation, execution, and termination of the movement.

In summary, on completion of this systematic task analysis as we propose, the clinician can identify the task and environmental conditions under which the patient has difficulty, identify the stages in the temporal sequence of movement where the difficulty is most evident, and hypothesize about the underlying determinants of the difficulty. The underlying determinants may include impairments (eg, force production, coordination) as well as coordination of synergistic groups of muscles. This proposed approach to task analysis is generic in that it can be used with any patient for analyzing performance of any task.

The clinician can augment this generic analysis of task performance by drawing from the extensive body of literature that is task specific. This task-specific literature focuses around strategies of task performance. The term "strategies" refers to those motor patterns that are used to accomplish the task, including how a person organizes sensory and perceptual information.^48(p123) Strategies provide an overall description of the way the task is performed. Strategies have been described for a number of important activities under a variety of environmental and task conditions. For some of these tasks, strategies are broken down into component parts or phases (eg, sit to stand,⁵¹ reach and grasp⁵²) or into neurophysiological descriptions.⁵³ The following examples are provided to illustrate this point, but are by no means comprehensive.

Phases have been described by a number of authors for whole-body activities (eg, gait,^54–56 sit to stand⁵¹) and for upper-extremity reaching tasks.⁵² Strategies that are used by healthy individuals of various ages have been described as typical for getting up from the floor or bed.^57–59 These and other approaches to stages and strategies can be used to focus the clinician’s observation and analysis of these specific tasks. As another example, when working with individuals who have balance dysfunction associated with vestibular damage, identification of sensory organization strategies may be critical for designing effective interventions.^60–62 When working with an individual after a cerebrovascular accident, it may be helpful to determine whether the individual transitions from a sitting position to a standing position at a fast speed, utilizing momentum (momentum strategy), or moves at a slow speed, relying primarily on lower-extremity force (stabilization strategy).⁶³

Examination at the Level of Impairments

Whether the clinician begins with task analysis or with impairment testing, at some point in the examination, the clinician may need to test specific impairments. As with the systems review, examination of impairments can draw on a variety of standard tests and measures (eg, reflexes, range of motion, muscle performance, sensory integrity), many of which are well articulated in the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice.¹⁹ Additionally, many resources are available to direct the clinician to examine specific impairments.^64,65

Summary

To summarize, task analysis and impairment testing are used by clinicians to perform the patient examination. Although the clinician can chose either entry point into the examination, task analysis, in our opinion, is an essential component of the process. Task analysis informs the general approach to intervention as well as those specific elements that will be incorporated into the plan of care. This process is further elaborated on in the next section on evaluation.

	Evaluation

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
The evaluation consists of an interpretation of findings in order to develop a realistic plan of care. The plan of care is based on a synthesis of the information from all of the previous steps, including the patient’s goals and expectations, task performance, the patient’s resources and impairments, and the medical diagnosis and prognosis for the condition. This synthesis results in the following: (1) identification of the most important problems for the patient (including both PIPs and N-PIPs),¹ (2) evaluation from both enablement and disablement perspectives, and (3) summary of the movement problem. This information leads to the clinician’s ability to: (1) develop a diagnosis and prognosis, (2) develop realistic goals and selection of appropriate outcomes measures, and (3) determine the overall approach to intervention as well as selection of the specific elements for the plan of care. Each of these elements is discussed below.

One of the first steps to the evaluation is for the clinician to determine whether the patient’s goals are realistic and appropriate. If they are inappropriate, it is necessary for the patient and clinician to negotiate goals that are meaningful to the patient as well as realistic.

Next, the clinician synthesizes all available information in relation to the patient’s main concerns, aspirations, and life circumstances. Included is an evaluation of relationships among all findings. This evaluation weighs the patient’s resources and impairments and analyzes relationships among direct and indirect effects of the disorder.

The plan of care is patient centered and often is focused around task performance. Therefore, an important step in the evaluation process is the analysis and summary of the movement problem. This information allows the clinician to design an overall approach to intervention and to determine how to implement the intervention.

Specifically, the analysis of the task and environment relationship allows the clinician to determine whether the patient has difficulty with all tasks in all environments (eg, cannot even sit unsupported on a stationary mat), has difficulty with only more demanding tasks and environments (eg, moving in a moving environment), or has some combination of these difficulties. This analysis guides the clinician’s choice of the environment in which to work. The nature of the task (eg, discrete versus serial) with which the patient has problems further informs the clinician’s decisions regarding the specific plan of care. Identification of where the problem is within the temporal sequence assists in the determination of whether to focus the intervention on initial conditions, initiation, execution, or termination of the task (or some combination thereof). Finally, the clinician’s choices regarding how best to focus the intervention are guided by identifying the underlying impairments influencing task performance.

This overall approach to evaluation flows directly from the task analysis and should be fairly consistent across physical therapists. For example, if the movement problem for a patient occurs when the patient moves in stationary environments, is most apparent during initiation and execution of a specified task, and relates to problems with postural control, then the overall approach to intervention should address each of these issues. The specific treatment techniques that the individual clinicians choose may vary, but the focus must be on the issues identified (ie, execution of tasks within a stationary environment, difficulty with postural control).

In summary, at the end of the evaluation of relevant tasks and impairments, the clinician should be able to answer the following questions:

1. In what environmental contexts does this individual have difficulty performing the task(s)?⁴⁵
   
2. Within the environmental context, what other issues are of importance (eg, height of the chair seat, base of support, lighting, compliance of the support surfaces)?
   
3. How does the movement problem manifest itself with regard to the temporal sequence of movements that comprise the task?^46,47
   
4. Which key underlying impairments likely affect specific or multiple stages within the temporal sequence of task performance?
   
5. Does the patient have difficulty coordinating synergistic groups of muscles and under what conditions?
   

Using these elements of the task analysis, the clinician develops a summary of the movement problem. Two examples that illustrate this process follow.

Task Analysis for an Individual Who Sustained a Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA)

A patient with a chronic CVA with residual loss of upper-extremity control seeks physical therapy to be able to increase the use of the affected upper extremity under a variety of environmental conditions. One difficulty that the therapist identifies is difficulty with the grasp and manipulation phases of the task of taking a tissue out of box. (This difficulty was environment neutral). The therapist observes that the initial conditions of the movement may not be biomechanically optimal because the person’s trunk alignment may subsequently produce abnormal scapular movements. The execution of the task is most affected because the person does not seem to generate the force production or the precision of finger movements to remove the tissue. The compensatory trunk movements have created a pattern of distal upper-extremity control that interferes with achieving the task. The therapist identifies initial conditions and execution as the 2 phases to work on.

Task Analysis for an Individual Who Has Unilateral Vestibular Disorder

A patient 6 weeks after the onset of labrynthitis seeks physical therapy to improve his balance and be able to resume commuting to work on the bus. The patient appears unstable when walking and climbing stairs, often holding on to a rail or touching the wall to maintain balance. Task analysis reveals that the patient’s primary difficulties are with execution and termination of movement in standing and walking in all environments, with the most difficulty when he is moving in a busy environment. He is malaligned in standing, which may contribute to difficulties with balance. The patient appears to have difficulty stabilizing body segments, moving within and between postures, and coordinating between postures and movements to accomplish functional activities. Impairments in flexibility, sensory organization, and motor control also are likely contributing to his overall balance problem. He is visually reliant with very limited use of vestibular inputs for postural control. The therapist identifies execution and termination as the 2 phases to concentrate on.

Diagnosis and Prognosis

The diagnosis and prognosis are critical to shaping the final plan of care. For example, a patient with a neurodegenerative disorder may have signs and symptoms quite similar to those of a patient with a nonprogressive neurologic injury. However, the course of the 2 disorders can be quite different, which has a great effect on appropriate goal setting and the overall plan of care.

Diagnosis, as performed by a physical therapist, refers to the cluster of signs and symptoms, syndromes, or categories and is used to guide the physical therapist in determining the most appropriate intervention strategy for each patient.¹⁹ The physical therapy profession has grappled for some time with the best means by which to summarize diagnosis but has not yet reached a consensus for individuals with neurologic dysfunction. This has been a source of discussion across the profession and in neurologic physical therapist practice in particular.^66–68

As a first approach to diagnosis, the clinician can identify the practice patterns under which this condition falls, using the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice.¹⁹ The preferred practice patterns describe the elements of the management process for patients with specific medical diagnoses as well as strategies for primary prevention and reduction of risk factors. Identification of the practice pattern, however, is not sufficient. As an evolving approach to the diagnosis made by the physical therapist, one of the important elements is diagnosis of the movement problem.⁴⁴ Ultimately, given the role of physical therapists as movement specialists, task analysis should form the basis of the diagnosis. It is our hope that this framework will stimulate further discussion and eventual application of task analysis for diagnostic purposes.

Prognosis for physical therapist practice refers to the predicted optimal level of functional improvement that can be expected and the amount of time required for the patient to reach that level.¹⁹ The preferred practice patterns in the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice¹⁹ provide a range of the number of visits required to manage this condition.¹⁹ The clinician can narrow this range through analysis of literature specifically related to prognosis for the condition.

Prognosis represents a synthesis, based on an understanding of the pathology, foundational knowledge, theory, evidence, experience, and examination findings and takes into account the patient’s social, emotional, and motivational status. Included in the synthesis are the following: prognosis for this disorder (eg, a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is likely to live 3–5 years),⁶⁹ prognosis for neurologic recovery (eg, following stroke, initial change scores on the Fugl-Meyer examination predict eventual neurologic recovery),⁷⁰ and prognosis for functional change (eg, even years after an incomplete spinal cord injury or stroke, some patients can make substantial and meaningful functional recovery.)^71,72

The patient’s aspirations and PIPs determine the focus of the goals. Priorities are based on patient-identified priorities for participation, functional ability, and task performance. Non-PIPs also are considered by the clinician, who should weigh the relative importance of problems that he or she identifies, as well as those identified by family members and caregivers. Taking all of this information into account, the clinician and patient come to an agreement regarding the most important problems around which care should be focused and together establish relevant goals. Goals must be realistic and able to be achieved within the constraints of the health care system.

Outcome measures reflect the patient’s goals. Outcome can be measured in terms of qualitative changes directly related to the patient’s goals (eg, patient’s goal is to feel satisfied with his or her level of physical independence) and quantitative changes related to task performance or functional abilities that are interpreted as being essential to meet the patient’s goals.

In summary, the evaluation draws on information from a variety of frameworks and models. The HOAC^1,20 is used to understand the patient’s perceived problems and related goals. The enablement perspective^7,11 draws attention to the patient’s resources, desires, and skills. The disablement perspective^2,8–10 is used to interpret underlying causes of dysfunction and prognosis, and task analysis provides a summary of specific movement problems. By synthesizing all of this information, the clinician and patient together arrive at goals that are meaningful to the patient and a plan of care that is appropriate to the goals. This synthesis guides the clinician’s decisions regarding when to use rehabilitative approaches, when to teach compensatory strategies, and when to use preventive approaches. The HOAC^1,20 guides the physical therapist to continuously test and modify hypotheses used to drive intervention choices as the plan of care evolves.

	Plan of Care

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
The plan of care is organized around the patient’s goals. Goal-directed therapy has been identified as improving motor function and promoting cortical reorganization.^73–75 The goals are the outcome of the evaluation process and consider both the PIPs and N-PIPs and the task analysis. The approach toward the plan of care in informed by the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice¹⁹ as well as by principles of motor learning, and evidence of task-specific training and other interventions in the neuroscience and rehabilitation literature.^76–79 The physical therapist plan of care consists of consultation, education, and intervention (Fig. 4). Physical therapists may play all or some of these roles in a given episode of care.

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Plan of care. The 3 distinct approaches to intervention are identified as well as the elements important to address within any intervention approach (environment, learning variables, dose).

Interventions are rendered based on manipulation of the environment and principles of exercise and motor learning. The specific components of the intervention are directly related to the results of the task analysis, in which tasks, environments, and movement problems were identified. The therapist uses the task analysis findings to consider the environmental context under which the person should practice the task in order to acquire and generalize the skill. Task-specific training has been advocated as the unit of therapy.^48,81,82 Learning variables serve as an outline for the specific treatment. Therapists select the appropriate schedule of practice and type of feedback given the goal and the state of the learner. The final consideration is dose, which includes frequency, intensity, and duration. Dose is an important variable of therapy and is included in the framework based on the knowledge that intensive practice (goal-directed) is an important factor is rehabilitation.⁸³

A case example is provided to illustrate the process by which these models and frameworks are integrated for patient care. This case example is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather is used to illustrate certain features of the decision-making process, up through the development of the initial plan of care.

	Case Example

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
History and Interview

Mr C was an 88-year-old man who sought physical therapy following a diagnosis of PD. He lived in a life care community with his wife of 60 years. He was the president of a company and drove himself to the office every day, although his son effectively ran the company.

Mr C reported that he was diagnosed with PD approximately a year previously and that since that time everything has become more difficult for him, takes time, and is "just plain slow." He traversed the length of his office (36.6 m [120 ft]) several times daily, and this was a slow process. He had severe osteoarthritis, especially of the knees and lumbar spine. Getting up from the seated position could be quite painful, and the crepitus was loud enough to hear from several feet away. Getting in and out of cars was difficult ("a contortionist activity"). When he returned from the office, he ate dinner and went to bed by 7:30 PM.

On probing by the clinician, Mr C reported that he has difficulty with balance control on uneven surfaces and that, when walking from his apartment to the elevator, he uses the walls for support. He reported frequent near falls, which he indicated tended to occur in the morning. He also reported difficulty getting out of the bed in the morning. Mr C’s goal in seeking treatment was to be able to function more easily, including the ability to complete his daily activities more efficiently, with less painful knees, and with greater stability.

At present, Mr C’s medical management included carbidopa-levodopa for the PD. He reported that his symptoms did not vary according to time of dosage; therefore, it would not be necessary to plan the intervention around his medication schedule. He also had ongoing treatment for the osteoarthritis, including ibuprofen daily and injections of hyaline G-F 20 every 4 months.

The clinician summarized Mr C’s history and interview from both enablement and disablement perspectives (Fig. 5). From the enablement perspective, it was important to assess his roles, the skills that he needs to fulfill these roles, and his resources. From the disablement perspective, it was important to assess those factors that limited his ability to fulfill his roles and to identify potential contributing impairments.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. The enablement and disablement perspective for Mr C. PD=Parkinson disease, ROM=range of motion.

Initial conditions revealed that he was consistently in excessive thoracolumbar flexion, with some asymmetry (lateral flexion to the right). Initiation was typically in the sagittal plane only, without appropriate movement in coronal plane to initiate gait. Notably, preparation appeared normal, and initiation was not delayed (ie, there was no evidence of akinesia). Execution revealed the following: amplitude was low (eg, small steps, small base of support), direction typically was in the sagittal plane without shifting of weight from the pelvis and without transverse-plane movement of the thorax relative to the pelvis, and speed was slow. Termination was stable in less-demanding situations, but he was unstable in moving environments and when tasks were performed serially. Findings from the task analysis for walking are summarized in Table 2.

The clinician next examined several impairments based on hypotheses formed during the task analysis and measured performance based on functions of importance for Mr C (Tab. 3). The visual analog scale⁸⁷ was used to assess knee pain, and the Modified Clinical Test for Sensory Interaction of Balance (CTSIB)⁸⁸ was used to evaluate balance control. Additionally, the UPDRS and the Modified Hoehn and Yahr Scale³⁷ were used to quantify signs and symptoms specifically associated with PD. Finally, performance-based measures were used to quantify balance, including turning in standing,³³ the Timed "Up & Go" Test,²³ and the Six-Minute Walk Test²⁵ (Tab. 3). The rationale is provided for inclusion of each measure. Additionally, the clinician obtained radiographs of Mr C’s knees, which demonstrated appropriate contact between the femur and tibia, but bone-on-bone contact between the right patella and femur.

From the disablement perspective, Mr C identified his main problems as knee pain when getting up from a seated position, slowness during all functional activities, and instability. The physical therapist identified further underlying problems, including substantially impaired axial range of motion and sensorimotor organization.

Based on the task analysis, Mr C’s movement problem was summarized as follows: in stationary environments, Mr C moved slowly but was relatively stable; as the task and environmental conditions were made more challenging, he had increasing difficulty with performance and stability. Based on the temporal sequence, the clinician observed consistent problems with initial conditions and execution of tasks. Under more challenging circumstances, problems also emerged with initiation and termination. For example, his problems were more evident with serial tasks than with discrete tasks and with moving environments compared with stationary environments.

Based on analysis of possible determinants, the clinician hypothesized that limited mobility of the spine and resulting altered alignment were a source of problems with initial conditions. Limited spinal mobility, coupled with the painful right knee, interfered with direction and smoothness of execution. These impairments, coupled with bradykinesia resulted in limited amplitude. Together, these impairments affected stability throughout all phases of the task. Under more challenging conditions, fatigue, problems with sensorimotor organization, and fear and anxiety related to the challenging circumstances further affected performance, explaining the slow and ineffective initiation and the instability during termination of walking.

Diagnosis and Prognosis

Based on the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice,¹⁹ the clinician determined that this patient’s main complaint of PD falls under Practice Pattern 5E: Impaired Motor Function and Sensory Integrity Associated With Progressive Disorders of the Central Nervous System. However, the osteoarthritis was of sufficient severity to warrant identification of a second practice pattern—Practice Pattern 4E: Impaired Joint Mobility, Motor Function, Muscle Performance, and Range of Motion Associated With Localized Inflammation.

Prognosis for this disorder.
Parkinson disease is a progressive disorder with variable rates of progression.⁸⁹ Pharmacological interventions have not been found to slow the course of neurologic decline. Osteoarthritis, likewise, is progressive in nature. Interventions such as injections of hyaline G-F 20 can be beneficial in reducing the pain associated with the condition. Total knee replacement most likely is not indicated for this man due to his age and to the PD. Clinical experience suggests that patients with PD frequently experience severe increases in symptoms following surgery.

Prognosis for functional change.
Some studies^90,91 suggest that functional change is possible. Evidence suggests that trunk range of motion specifically is limiting to balance control and can improve.^31,33 Mr C’s age, the length of time that musculoskeletal changes have existed, and his questionable commitment and ability to carry out a home program all may limit the extent of functional improvement. Evidence also indicates that changes can occur with interventions directed toward sensorimotor organization.⁹² Finally, improved biomechanics of transitioning from a sitting position to a standing position can diminish the pain that Mr C experiences and can slow down further degenerative processes.

A number of investigations have been conducted, specifically examining exercise and PD. Findings of these investigations, most of which had small sample sizes, suggest that balance, gait, and overall function can improve with a variety of interventions.^90,91 The evaluation above indicated to the physical therapist that range of motion and altered alignment had a major effect on this patient’s performance. Therefore, interventions are specifically indicated that focus directly on these problems.

Finally, some studies^93,94 provide guidance regarding intervention directly focused toward osteoarthritis of the knees. These studies demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions including fitness walking, aerobic exercise, and strength training as well as mobilization and manipulation of the lumbar spine, knee, and ankle.

Goals and Outcome Measures

The following were determined to be meaningful changes for Mr C: ability to conduct daily functional activities with less painful knees, greater stability, and less fatigue. Goals were set that were focused around these identified changes. These goals were deemed to be realistic and achievable within the constraints of the health care system (Tab. 4).

Implications for Treatment Planning and the Initial Plan of Care

Taking all of this information into account, it was deemed important to work with Mr C in progressively more demanding environments (moving support surfaces and people moving around him). It also would be important to use tasks of increasing complexity (eg, serial versus discrete tasks). The focus of these tasks should be on improving range of motion and posture in order to improve the initial conditions, execution, and termination of task performance.

Based on a full analysis of Mr C’s problems, their underlying causes, and overall prognosis, a combined intervention approach was recommended that includes remediation, compensation, and prevention. To provide adequate physiological support for function, it would be important to improve trunk range of motion to the extent possible (remediation) and to assist Mr C to use more biomechanically favorable strategies for the sitting-to-standing task (remediation), thereby lessening the demand on his knees and decreasing the pain. Clinical experience suggests that exercises for trunk range of motion should be practiced in stationary environments to allow Mr C to focus on range of motion. Improved transitioning from a sitting position to a standing position should be practiced from higher chair seats with a firm surface initially to work on the organization of the task and moving to progressively lower seats and less firm surfaces.

Improved sensorimotor organization also was needed to provide Mr C with greater stability while moving in standing positions (remediation). Sensorimotor organization should be practiced in progressively more demanding environments (eg, standing on foam with eyes open, then eyes closed; walking across a moving surface) and with progressively more demanding tasks (eg, walking in the context of serial tasks).

Compensatory strategies also were indicated to assist Mr C with his endurance and to protect his knees. For example, he should be encouraged to use a cane while walking and to obtain an electric tri-cart for locomotion over longer distances (eg, from his apartment to his parking space). He should be encouraged to have a driver take him to and from his office.

Finally, preventive strategies were important both in light of the PD and the osteoarthritis. With PD (as well as increasing age), Mr C was at risk for further loss of range of motion. An exercise program was indicated to retard these further losses. Prevention of further damage to the knees and back is needed (eg, the use of the tri-cart or a cane), and general conditioning is important to retain overall health and wellness.⁹⁵

	Summary of the Framework and Its Application

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 
A framework is proposed to guide physical therapist practice and to provide a structure for teaching clinical decision making to future clinicians. The framework integrates enablement and disablement perspectives and hypothesis generation and refinement at each step of patient care, and it incorporates systematic task analysis for examination, evaluation, and intervention. The process is cyclical and iterative. The framework is illustrated using a case example.

It is important to note that this framework is not meant to be prescriptive in nature. That is, the order and emphasis of application of the elements of the framework depend on factors such as the clinician’s level of skill, experience, and preferred choices. However, the elements that are included are meant to be comprehensive.

Many of the elements of this framework are familiar and used with increasing frequency in both clinical and educational settings (eg, Guide to Physical Therapist Practice,¹⁹ disablement models^8,9). This framework differs from prior work in that we propose that other critical elements also be included (eg, task analysis, a patient-centered enablement approach, algorithms for making decisions). In particular, we propose that task analysis integrates the entire framework and is critical for effective decision making in the clinic. Such a systematic approach as we describe should be emphasized in the process of educating physical therapists.

It also is important to note that this framework is proposed as a working document. The framework will continue to evolve as the scientific basis for movement analysis and rehabilitation evolves. Additionally, the framework should be evaluated and refined by applying it to clinical decision making across a wide variety of diagnostic conditions and populations, including those with non-neurologic disorders. For example, focus groups can be used to examine the utility of this approach for structuring neurologic physical therapist education, and case analyses can be used to test the clarity and utility of the approach for patient management.

The complete framework, depicted in Figure 1, is a representation of actual clinical practice for many experienced clinicians. By building from simple principles to the entire framework, experienced clinicians and educators can use this framework to assist students and novice clinicians to better understand and incorporate all aspects of decision making necessary for effective care of patients. This framework also provides the experienced clinician with a structure for articulating intuitive decisions.

	Footnotes

 
All authors contributed to each part of the manuscript, including conceptualization, writing, and editing. The authors thank Jody Cormack, PT, DPT, for her insight and suggestions in the final drafts of the manuscript. They acknowledge substantive discussions with a number of colleagues at the III STEP symposium and in particular thank James Gordon, PT, EdD, Lois Hedman, PT, MS, Lori Quinn, PT, EdD, and Anne Shumway-Cook, PT, PhD. They also thank Jeffrey Lewis, who assisted with preparation of the figures.

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants #5 R01 HD 43770-03 and #M01 RR00051-44 and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Master Educator Guild.

This article is based on a presentation at the III STEP Symposium on Translating Evidence Into Practice: Linking Movement Science and Intervention; July 15–21, 2005; Salt Lake City, Utah.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Overview of the Framework History and Interview Systems Review Examination Evaluation Plan of Care Case Example Summary of the Framework... References

 

1. Echternach JL, Rothstein JM. Hypothesis-oriented algorithms. Phys Ther. 1989;69:559–564.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Schenkman M, Butler RB. A model for multisystem evaluation, interpretation and treatment of individuals with neurologic dysfunction. Phys Ther. 1989;69:538–547.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Schenkman M, Donovan J, Tsubota J, et al. Management of individuals with Parkinson’s disease: rationale and case studies. Phys Ther. 1989;69:944–955.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Scheets PK, Sahrmann SA, Norton JB. Diagnosis for physical therapy for patients with neuromuscular conditions. Neurology Report. 1999;23:158–169.
5. Schenkman M, Bliss S, Day L, et al. A model for management of patients with neurological dysfunction: update and case analysis. Neurology Report. 1999;23:145–157.
6. Bello-Haas VD. A framework for rehabilitation for neurodegenerative diseases: managing progression and maximizing quality of life. Neurology Report. 2002;26:115–129.
7. Quinn L, Gordon J. Functional Outcomes Documentation for Rehabilitation. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 2003:6–7.
8. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980.
9. Nagi S. Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In: Sussman M, ed. Sociology and Rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1965:100–113.
10. Verbrugge LM, Jette AM. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1–14.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
11. Enabling America: Assessing the Role of Rehabilitation Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1997.
12. Gordon J. A top-down model for neurologic rehabilitation. Presentation at the III STEP Symposium on Translating Evidence Into Practice: Linking Movement Science and Intervention; July 15–21, 2005; Salt Lake City, Utah.
13. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
14. Jette AM. Toward a common language for function, disability, and health. Phys Ther. 2006;86:726–734.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Platt F, Gasper DL, Coulehan JL, et al. "Tell me about yourself": The patient-centered interview. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:1079–1085.[Free Full Text]
16. Smyth FS. The place of humanities and social sciences in education of physicians. J Med Educ. 1962;37:495–499.[Web of Science][Medline]
17. Kravitz RL, Callahan EJ, Paterniti D, et al. Prevalence and sources of patients’ unmet expectations for care. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:730–737.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Delbanco TL. Enriching the doctor-patient relationship by inviting the patient’s perspective. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:414–418.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
19. Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. 2nd ed. Phys Ther. 2001;81:9–746.[Web of Science][Medline]
20. Rothstein JM, Riddle DL, Echternach JL. The Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II): a guide for patient management. Phys Ther. 2003;83:455–470.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Cutson TM, Zhu C, Whetten K, Schenkman M. Observations of spouse-patient dyads with Parkinson’s disease over five years. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2004;28:122–128.
22. Duncan PW, Studenski S, Chandler J, Prescott B. Functional reach: predictive validity in a sample of elderly male veterans. J Gerontol. 1992;47:M93–M98.[Abstract]
23. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test. Phys Ther. 2000;80:896–903.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Shumway-Cook A, Baldwin M, Polissar NS, Gruber W. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 1997;77:812–819.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Enright P, Sherrill D. Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 1998;158:1384–1387.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Hughes MA, Myers BS, Schenkman ML. The role of strength in rising from a chair in the frail elderly. J Biomech. 1996;12:1509–1513.
27. Schenkman M, Hughes MA, Samsa G, Studenski SA. The relative importance of strength and balance in the performance of sitting to standing by functionally impaired older individuals. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:1441–1446.[Web of Science][Medline]
28. Eriksrud O, Bohannon RW. Relationship of knee extension force to independence in sit-to-stand performance in patients receiving acute rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2003;83:544–551.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Lai SM, Duncan PW, Keighely J. Prediction of functional outcomes after stroke: comparison of the Orpington Prognostic Scale and NIH Stroke Scale. Stroke. 1998;29:1838–1842.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Macko RF, Smith GV, Dobrovolny L, et al. Treadmill training improves fitness reserve in chronic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:879–884.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
31. Schenkman M, Morey M, Kuchibhatla M. Spinal flexibility and physical performance of community-dwelling adults with and without Parkinson’s disease. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55:M441–M445.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Schenkman M, Clark K, Xie T, et al. Spinal flexibility and performance of standing reach task: participants with and without Parkinson’s disease. Phys Ther. 2001;81:1400–1411.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Schenkman M, Cutson TM, Kuchibhatla M, et al. A randomized controlled exercise trial in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Am Geriatric Soc. 1998;46:1207–1216.[Web of Science][Medline]
34. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matcher D, et al. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke. 1992;23:1084–1089.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Wood E, Rosenbaum P. The gross motor function classification system for cerebral palsy: a study of reliability and stability over time. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2000;42:292–296.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
36. Woischneck D, Firsching R. Efficiency of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)-Score for the long-term follow-up after severe brain injuries. Acta Neurochirurgica Suppl. 1998;71:138–141.
37. Fahn S, Elton RL, and members of the UPDRS Development Committee. Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne D, Goldstein M, eds. Recent Developments in Parkinson’s Disease, Volume 2. Florham Park, NJ: Macmillan Healthcare Information; 1987:153–163.
38. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ludlow LH, et al. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI): Development, Standardization and Administration Manual. Boston, Mass: PEDI Research Group, New England Medical Center Hospitals; 1992.
39. Russell DJ, Rosenbaum PL, Avery LM, Lane M. Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 and GMFM-88) User’s Manual. London, United Kingdom: Mac Keith Press; 2002.
40. Nordmark E. Jarnlo G. Hagglund G. Comparison of the Gross Motor Function Measure and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory in assessing motor function in children undergoing selective dorsal rhizotomy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2000;42:245–252.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
41. Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, et al. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39:214–223.[Web of Science][Medline]
42. Ling SS, Fisher BE. Functional improvements using observational movement analysis and task specific training for an individual with chronic severe upper extremity hemiparesis. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2004;28:91–99.
43. Philosophical statement on diagnosis in physical therapy. In: Proceedings of the House of Delegates. Washington, DC, American Physical Therapy Association; 1983.
44. Sahrmann SA. The Twenty-Ninth Mary McMillan Lecture: Moving precisely? Or taking the path of least resistance? Phys Ther. 1998;78:1208–1218.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Gentile AM. Skill acquisition: action, movement, and neuromotor processes. In: Carr JH, Shepherd RB, eds. Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. 2nd ed. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers Inc; 2000:111–187.
46. Hedman LD, Rogers MW, Hanke TA. Neurologic professional education: lining the foundation science of motor control with physical therapy interventions for movement dysfunction. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 1996;20:9–13.
47. Hedman LD, Sullivan JE. Acute rehabilitation post stroke. In: Riolo L, ed. Topics in Physical Therapy: Neurology. Alexandria, Va: American Physical Therapy Association; 2002: lesson 4.
48. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor Control: Theory and Practical Applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
49. Shumway-Cook A, Patla AE, Stewart A, et al. Environmental demands associated with community mobility in older adults with and without mobility disabilities. Phys Ther. 2002;82:670–681.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
50. Schenkman M, Rugo de Cartaya V. Kinesiology of the shoulder complex. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1987;8:438–450.[Medline]
51. Janssej WG, Bussmann HB, Stam HJ. Determinants of the sit-to-stand movement: a review. Phys Ther. 2002;82:866–879.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
52. Kamper DG, McKenna-Cole AN, Kahn LE, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Alterations in reaching after stroke and their relation to movement direction and impairment severity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:702–707.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
53. Runge CF, Shupert CL, Horak FB, Zajac FE. Ankle and hip postural strategies defined by joint torques. Gait Posture. 1999;10:161–170.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
54. Wolfson L, Whipple R, Amerman P, Tobin JN. Gait assessment in the elderly: a gait abnormality rating scale and its relation to falls. J Gerontol. 1990;45:M12–M19.[Abstract]
55. Winter DA. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1990.
56. Perry J. Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc; 1992.
57. Cohen BG, Cardillo ER, Lugg D, et al. Description of movement patterns of young adults moving supine from the foot to the head of the bed. Phys Ther. 1998;78:999–1006.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
58. Ford-Smith CD, VanSant AF. Age differences in movement patterns used to rise from a bed in subjects in the third through fifth decades of age. Phys Ther. 1993;73:300–309.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
59. Marsala G, VanSant AF. Age-related differences in movement patterns used by toddlers to rise from a supine position to erect stance. Phys Ther. 1998;78:149–159.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
60. Gill-Body KM, Krebs DE, Parker SW, Riley PO. Physical therapy management of peripheral vestibular dysfunction: two clinical case reports. Phys Ther. 1994;74:129–142.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. Gill-Body KM, Popat RA, Parker SW, Krebs DE. Rehabilitation of balance in two patients with cerebellar dysfunction. Phys Ther. 1997;77:534–552.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Gill-Body KM, Beninato M, Krebs DE. Relationship among balance impairments, functional performance and disability in subjects with vestibular hypofunction. Phys Ther. 2000;80:748–758.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
63. Hughes MA, Wiener DK, Schenkman ML, et al. Chair rise strategies in the elderly. Clin Biomech. 1994;9:187–192.[CrossRef]
64. O’Sullivan SB, Schmitz TJ, eds. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: Assessment and Treatment. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: FA Davis Co; 2001.
65. Umphred D, ed. Neurological Rehabilitation. 4th ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2001.
66. Sahrmann SA. Diagnosis by the physical therapist: a prerequisite for treatment (special communication). Phys Ther. 1988;68:1303–1307.
67. Deutsch J. Editor’s note: Confused about physical therapy diagnosis and differential diagnosis? Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2004;28:153.
68. Sullivan KJ, Hershberg J, Howard R, Fisher BE. Neurologic differential diagnosis for physical therapy. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2004;28:162–168.
69. Bello-Haas VD, Kloos AD, Mitsumoto H. Physical therapy for a patient through six stages of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1312–1324.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
70. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matcher D, et al. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke: outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke. 1992;23:1084–1089.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
71. Wirz M, Zemon DH, Rupp R, et al. Effectiveness of automated locomotor training in patients with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury: a multicenter trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:672–680.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
72. Peurala SH, Tarkka IM, Pitkanen K, Sivenius J. The effectiveness of body weight-supported gait training and floor walking in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1557–1564.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
73. Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F, Milliken GW. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science. 1996;272:1791–1794.[Abstract]
74. Liepert J, Bauder H, Miltner WHR, et al. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke. 2000;31:1210–1216.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
75. Jang SH, You SH, Hallett M, et al. Cortical reorganization and associated functional motor recovery after virtual reality in patients with chronic stroke: an experimenter-blind preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:2218–2223.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
76. Halsband U, Lange RK. Motor learning in man: a review of functional and clinical studies. J Physiol (Paris). 2006;99(4–6):414–424.
77. Dean CM, Richards CL, Malouin F. Task-related circuit training improves performance of locomotor tasks in chronic stroke: a randomized, controlled pilot trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:409–417.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
78. Plautz EJ, Milliken GW, Nudo RJ. Effects of repetitive motor training on movement representations in adult squirrel monkeys: role of use versus learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2000;74:27–55.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
79. Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation. Stroke Rehabilitation. 2006;13(2):1–267.
80. Sullivan KJ, Knowlton BJ, Dobkin BH. Step training with body weight support: effect of treadmill speed and practice paradigms on poststroke locomotor recovery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:683–691.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
81. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, eds. Motor Relearning Program for Stroke. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers Inc; 1986.
82. Carr JH, Shepherd RB. Stroke Rehabilitation: Guidelines for Exercise and Training to Optimize Motor Skill. Newton, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2003.
83. Kwakkel G, van Peppen R, Wagenaar RC, et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke. 2004;35:2529–2539.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
84. Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol A Bio Sci Med Sci. 1995;50:M28–M34.[Abstract]
85. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-Mental State": A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiat Res. 1975;12:189–198.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
86. Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression, and mortality. Neurology. 1967;17:427–442.[Free Full Text]
87. Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P. Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine. 2000;25:3140–3151.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
88. Horak FB. Clinical measurement of postural control in adults. Phys Ther. 1987;67:1881–1885.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
89. Zetusky WJ, Jankovic, J, Pirozzolo FJ. The heterogeneity of Parkinson’s disease: clinical and prognostic implications. Neurology. 1985;35:522–526.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
90. de Goede CJT, Keus SHJ, Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC. The effects of physical therapy in Parkinson’s disease: a research synthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:509–515.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
91. Deane KH, Jones D, Ellis-Hill C, et al. A comparison of physiotherapy techniques for patients with Parkinson s disease [Cochrane Review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;1:CD002815.[Medline]
92. Badke MB, Shea TA, Miedaner JA, Grove CR. Outcomes after rehabilitation for adults with balance dysfunction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:227–233.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
93. Puett DW Griffin MR. Published trials of nonmedicinal and noninvasive therapies for hip and knee osteoarthritis. Clin Ther. 1992;14:336–346.[Web of Science][Medline]
94. Deyle GD, Allison SC, Matekel RL, et al. Physical therapy treatment effectiveness for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized comparison of supervised clinical exercise and manual therapy procedures versus a home exercise program. Phys Ther. 2005;85:1301–1317.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
95. King AC, Rejeski WJ, Buchner DM. Physical activity interventions targeting older adults: a critical review and recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:316–333.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Van Peppen, M. Schuurmans, E. Stutterheim, E. Lindeman, and N. Van Meeteren Promoting the use of outcome measures by an educational programme for physiotherapists in stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial Clinical Rehabilitation, November 1, 2009; 23(11): 1005 - 1017. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schenkman, M. Articles by Gill-Body, K. M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schenkman, M. Articles by Gill-Body, K. M Related Collections Neurology/Neuromuscular System: Other Clinical Decision Making Diagnosis/Prognosis: Other Social Bookmarking                      What's this?