Spasticity over time during acute rehabilitation

A study of patient and clinician scores

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: The aims of this study were to describe spasticity trajectories as a function of time, gender, and diagnosis and to explore the correspondence between patient and clinician scores of spasticity. Background: Discrepancy between examiner assessment and patient rating of spasticity exists. Assessments that include the patient perspective are critical for patient safety. This mixed-method study provided patient descriptors of spasticity integrated with clinical scales. Method: Twenty-three participants provided spasticity descriptors and rated their spasticity based on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores. A clinician evaluated spasticity daily using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). This resulted in 1976 points of data for analysis. Results: Spasticity was highly variable over time. The empirical correspondence between the clinician-rated MAS and the patient-rated NRS revealed that patient and examiner understanding of spasticity were diverged considerably. Conclusions: Clinical evaluation protocols should include patient reports on spasticity. Knowledge about patient word choice can enhance patient-provider communication.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)16-23
Number of pages8
JournalApplied Nursing Research
Volume30
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2016

Fingerprint

Rehabilitation
Patient Safety
Clinical Protocols
Communication

Keywords

  • Communication
  • Mixed method
  • Nursing
  • Spasticity
  • Symptom experiences

Cite this

@article{e4277d2485b34b79bed79b2ea64c415d,
title = "Spasticity over time during acute rehabilitation: A study of patient and clinician scores",
abstract = "Aims: The aims of this study were to describe spasticity trajectories as a function of time, gender, and diagnosis and to explore the correspondence between patient and clinician scores of spasticity. Background: Discrepancy between examiner assessment and patient rating of spasticity exists. Assessments that include the patient perspective are critical for patient safety. This mixed-method study provided patient descriptors of spasticity integrated with clinical scales. Method: Twenty-three participants provided spasticity descriptors and rated their spasticity based on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores. A clinician evaluated spasticity daily using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). This resulted in 1976 points of data for analysis. Results: Spasticity was highly variable over time. The empirical correspondence between the clinician-rated MAS and the patient-rated NRS revealed that patient and examiner understanding of spasticity were diverged considerably. Conclusions: Clinical evaluation protocols should include patient reports on spasticity. Knowledge about patient word choice can enhance patient-provider communication.",
keywords = "Communication, Mixed method, Nursing, Spasticity, Symptom experiences",
author = "Bhimani, {Rozina H} and Peden-McAlpine, {Cynthia J} and Gaugler, {Joseph E} and Anderson, {Lisa C}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.apnr.2015.08.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "16--23",
journal = "Applied Nursing Research",
issn = "0897-1897",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spasticity over time during acute rehabilitation

T2 - A study of patient and clinician scores

AU - Bhimani, Rozina H

AU - Peden-McAlpine, Cynthia J

AU - Gaugler, Joseph E

AU - Anderson, Lisa C

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - Aims: The aims of this study were to describe spasticity trajectories as a function of time, gender, and diagnosis and to explore the correspondence between patient and clinician scores of spasticity. Background: Discrepancy between examiner assessment and patient rating of spasticity exists. Assessments that include the patient perspective are critical for patient safety. This mixed-method study provided patient descriptors of spasticity integrated with clinical scales. Method: Twenty-three participants provided spasticity descriptors and rated their spasticity based on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores. A clinician evaluated spasticity daily using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). This resulted in 1976 points of data for analysis. Results: Spasticity was highly variable over time. The empirical correspondence between the clinician-rated MAS and the patient-rated NRS revealed that patient and examiner understanding of spasticity were diverged considerably. Conclusions: Clinical evaluation protocols should include patient reports on spasticity. Knowledge about patient word choice can enhance patient-provider communication.

AB - Aims: The aims of this study were to describe spasticity trajectories as a function of time, gender, and diagnosis and to explore the correspondence between patient and clinician scores of spasticity. Background: Discrepancy between examiner assessment and patient rating of spasticity exists. Assessments that include the patient perspective are critical for patient safety. This mixed-method study provided patient descriptors of spasticity integrated with clinical scales. Method: Twenty-three participants provided spasticity descriptors and rated their spasticity based on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores. A clinician evaluated spasticity daily using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). This resulted in 1976 points of data for analysis. Results: Spasticity was highly variable over time. The empirical correspondence between the clinician-rated MAS and the patient-rated NRS revealed that patient and examiner understanding of spasticity were diverged considerably. Conclusions: Clinical evaluation protocols should include patient reports on spasticity. Knowledge about patient word choice can enhance patient-provider communication.

KW - Communication

KW - Mixed method

KW - Nursing

KW - Spasticity

KW - Symptom experiences

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960924685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960924685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.apnr.2015.08.007

DO - 10.1016/j.apnr.2015.08.007

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 16

EP - 23

JO - Applied Nursing Research

JF - Applied Nursing Research

SN - 0897-1897

ER -