Intro Flashcards
patho-anatomical model
History to generate hypotheses
Exam to refine & narrow hypothesis
- special tests selectively stress tissues
- joint glide assessment in many directions
Imaging studies may be helpful
Psycho-social important to consider
Patho-anatomical model principle
altered physiology leads to impairments that we can treat
benefits of patho-anatomical approach to the extremities
- solid foundation in the basic sciences
- objective in assessment and measurement
- intuitive link between symptoms, signs, and treatment
- successful in resolution of impairments and symptoms
- usually repeatable across practitioners
- somewhat easy to learn conceptual framework
why hasn’t the patho-anatomical model been sufficient?
Lack of specific assessment techniques
-joint glides-ability to test only 1 structure at a time
Poor correlation between signs (including imaging), and symptoms
Little consideration of psycho-social factors
**more than 85% of people w/ LBP can’t reliably be attributed to a specific disease or abnormality
LBP & neck pain classification model
Allows division into sub-sets of “like” patients problems
-Based on algorithms of signs and symptoms
Benefit at the PT practice level
-alignment of evidence-based treatments to categories of problem
Benefit at the research level
-recognition that all LBP are NOT the same, all PT should not be the same
- low back was first-better developed and tested
- neck coming on strong now
Radiating pain
somatic-referred pain
vs.
neurogenic pain
somatic referred pain
muscles joints ligaments, non specific
neurogenic pain
sharp, electric pain
complicated: fractures
patho-anatomical model doesn’t work for most spinal problems
doesn’t work well for some patient classifications
- large disc herniations with radiculopathy
- fractures
doesn’t work well for the majority (80%) of people with spinal pain
- “non-specific LB/neck pain”
- “sprain/strain”
- “idiopathic”
why a classification approach?
Attempt to make order of chaotic and unconnected clinical signs and symptoms
Allow generalizations to be made
- identify and treat similar problems
- every patient is not “from scratch”
Better predict and compare outcomes by category
Classification of Dx & disease in medicine
- around for a long time
- led to essentialist approach
- nominalist approach
Essentialist approach
disease caused by agent (bacteria); tx is to modify or eliminate agent
-broadened to include: patho-anatomic, patho-physiologic, infectious, immunologic problems
does not deal well with problems were a causative agent is unknown
Nominalist approach
- classification & treatment occurs w/out knowing causative agent or etiology
- diagnostic label from clusters of signs and symptoms
problems with classification approach
Subjectivity of the classification process
Mutually exclusive (and exhaustive) categories
Generality or specificity of diagnostic label
subjectivity of the classification process
studies have classified patient problems according to the information they need (LBP)
- patho-anatomic
- radiologic
- symptoms
- psychological
valid and important for that focus, but may not be for another focus-hard to combine/compare between studies
mutually exclusive (and exhaustive) categories
ideally, categories should be de eloped that are exclusive and exhaustive
- all patients should be classifiable-exhaustive
- all patients should fall into only 1 category- exclusive
*extremely difficult (impossible??) to do
generality or specificity of diagnostic label
also may depend on the needs of classifiers
-fibromyalgia (non-mechanical) vs. functional somatic disorder (mechanical)
different needs=different level of specification
NOT a cookbook
standardization of treatments is not always a bad thing (appendicitis)
classification is not a bad thing
“shoulder pain” classifications:
-impingement, instability, frozen shoulder, muscle strength/power impairment, fracture, tumor, visceral referral
many PTs already formally or informally classify pt problems
particular classification scheme more helpful to PT when based on signs and symptoms that align interventions to the category of pt most likely to benefit from them
process of classification
consensus of “experts in the field”
research to validate and refine categories
research to determine efficacy
- treatments within category vs. random
- development of clinical prediction rules & validation of CPRs
Clinical prediction rules (CPR)
who might benefit best?
- Canadian
- Ottawa
