F-3-16-05
DEVELOPMENT OF REHABILITATION CLINICAL ALGORITHMS AT 20 VA MEDICAL CENTERS
H. E. Marshall: MRA, OTR/L (Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC- USA)
L.C. Anderson, M.D. (Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, Colorado- USA)
This presentation will focus on development process and systemwide implementation of two clinical care algorithms for acute rehabilitation management of stroke and lower extremity amputee patients. The presenter will review initial program planning data, expanded algorithm components, functional outcome measures, patient and provider satisfaction data, and initial outcome results. Educational objectives include developing and understanding of A.) Process for algorithm development in multihospital setting; B.) Utilization of functional outcome measures and customer feedback data; C.) Usefulness of case-adjusted Rehabilitation "Bench Marks." Results of improved system of care will be presented. They include: onset days, length of treatment, efficiency, discharge destination, and other elements.
F-3-16-06
SURVEY ON IMPAIRMENT/DISABILITY RATING IN FLORIDA
Oregon K. Hunter, M.D. (Rehabilitation Medicine Associates, Ocala, FL, USA); Dorothy Clay Sims (SDL, Ocala, FL, USA); L. Stuart Cody (Ocala, FL, USA)
Purpose: To survey opinions on impairment and disability concepts in Florida to determine if there are any significant differences between professional groups.
Method: A questionnaire was created to survey the target professional groups. Anonymous questionnaires were distributed to 120 professionals for data collection. Completed questionnaires were analyzed using the chi-square method.
Result: Analysis of the data indicated that in 6 out of 11 categories there were significant differences in respondent opinions. Claims adjusters were more likely to view disability as equal to impairment. Attorneys (claimant and defense), health care providers (physiatrists) and rehabilitation specialists uniformly distinguished that impairment did not equal disability.
Claims adjusters were also more likely to consider disability as a medical determination. Attorneys, physiatrists and rehabilitation specialists mostly did not view disability as a medical determination.
Claims adjusters were more likely to consider impairment rather than disability as the best means to determine benefits. On the contrary, most attorneys and about half of the physiatrists were more likely to consider disability as the best means to determine benefits.
Conclusion: Adjusters failed to understand the concept of disability vs. impairment, as opposed to attorneys, physiatrists and rehabilitation specialists.
