Section 4: Planning the physical examination: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region]]<br> | |||
= Necessity for planning = | = Necessity for planning = | ||
A process of interpreting the data from the patient history and defining the main hypotheses is essential to an effective physical examination<ref>Maitland G, Hengeveld E, Banks K, et al (Eds)(2005). Maitland's Vertebral Manipulation, 7th Edn, Elsevier Butterworth Heinneman, Edinburgh.</ref><ref>Petty NJ (2011). Neuromusculoskeletal Examination and Assessment: A Handbook for Therapists (Physiotherapy Essentials), 4th edn, Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier, Edinburgh.</ref>. Hypothesis generation from the history and refining, re-ranking and rejecting of these hypotheses in the physical examination is necessary to facilitate optimal clinical reasoning in OMT<ref>Jones MA, Rivett DA (2004). Introduction to clinical reasoning. In M.A. Jones and D.A. Rivett (eds.), Clinical Reasoning for Manual Therapists. Butterworth-Heinemann: Edinburgh 3-24.</ref>. Therefore careful planning of the physical examination is required. In particular for this framework, the possible vasculogenic (cervical arterial) contribution to the patient’s presentation needs to be clearly evaluated from the patient history data. | A process of interpreting the data from the patient history and defining the main hypotheses is essential to an effective physical examination<ref>Maitland G, Hengeveld E, Banks K, et al (Eds)(2005). Maitland's Vertebral Manipulation, 7th Edn, Elsevier Butterworth Heinneman, Edinburgh.</ref><ref>Petty NJ (2011). Neuromusculoskeletal Examination and Assessment: A Handbook for Therapists (Physiotherapy Essentials), 4th edn, Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier, Edinburgh.</ref>. Hypothesis generation from the history and refining, re-ranking and rejecting of these hypotheses in the physical examination is necessary to facilitate optimal clinical reasoning in OMT<ref>Jones MA, Rivett DA (2004). Introduction to clinical reasoning. In M.A. Jones and D.A. Rivett (eds.), Clinical Reasoning for Manual Therapists. Butterworth-Heinemann: Edinburgh 3-24.</ref>. Therefore careful planning of the physical examination is required. In particular for this framework, the possible vasculogenic (cervical arterial) contribution to the patient’s presentation needs to be clearly evaluated from the patient history data. | ||
= Are any further patient history data required? = | = Are any further patient history data required? = | ||
An important component of planning is the identification of any further patient history data that may be required. That is, are there any gaps in the information obtained? Is the quality of the information obtained sufficient? | An important component of planning is the identification of any further patient history data that may be required. That is, are there any gaps in the information obtained? Is the quality of the information obtained sufficient? | ||
= Decision-making regarding the physical examination = | = Decision-making regarding the physical examination = | ||
Based upon the evaluation and interpretation of the data from the patient history, the physical therapist needs to decide: | Based upon the evaluation and interpretation of the data from the patient history, the physical therapist needs to decide: | ||
*Are there any precautions to OMT? | *Are there any precautions to OMT? | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
*Do the physical tests need to be adapted for this specific patient?<br> | *Do the physical tests need to be adapted for this specific patient?<br> | ||
= References = | = References = | ||
<references /> | |||
<br> | |||
<br> | |||
*[[Section 3: Patient history|'''''Click to go back to Section 3: Patient history''''']] | *[[Section 3: Patient history|'''''Click to go back to Section 3: Patient history''''']] | ||
*[[Section 5: Physical examination|'''''Click to continue to Section 5: Physical examination''''']] | *[[Section 5: Physical examination|'''''Click to continue to Section 5: Physical examination''''']] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:55, 31 December 2012
International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region
Necessity for planning[edit | edit source]
A process of interpreting the data from the patient history and defining the main hypotheses is essential to an effective physical examination[1][2]. Hypothesis generation from the history and refining, re-ranking and rejecting of these hypotheses in the physical examination is necessary to facilitate optimal clinical reasoning in OMT[3]. Therefore careful planning of the physical examination is required. In particular for this framework, the possible vasculogenic (cervical arterial) contribution to the patient’s presentation needs to be clearly evaluated from the patient history data.
Are any further patient history data required?[edit | edit source]
An important component of planning is the identification of any further patient history data that may be required. That is, are there any gaps in the information obtained? Is the quality of the information obtained sufficient?
Decision-making regarding the physical examination[edit | edit source]
Based upon the evaluation and interpretation of the data from the patient history, the physical therapist needs to decide:
- Are there any precautions to OMT?
- Are there any contraindications to OMT?
- What physical tests need to be included in the physical examination?
- What is the priority for these physical tests for this specific patient? This is to inform decisions regarding the order of testing and to determine which tests should be completed at the first visit.
- Do the physical tests need to be adapted for this specific patient?
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Maitland G, Hengeveld E, Banks K, et al (Eds)(2005). Maitland's Vertebral Manipulation, 7th Edn, Elsevier Butterworth Heinneman, Edinburgh.
- ↑ Petty NJ (2011). Neuromusculoskeletal Examination and Assessment: A Handbook for Therapists (Physiotherapy Essentials), 4th edn, Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier, Edinburgh.
- ↑ Jones MA, Rivett DA (2004). Introduction to clinical reasoning. In M.A. Jones and D.A. Rivett (eds.), Clinical Reasoning for Manual Therapists. Butterworth-Heinemann: Edinburgh 3-24.
