Quick Reference: Checklist for Upper Extremity Impairment Evaluations

1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage
2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.


2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).


1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz ◽  
Sankar Perraraju

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, offers several categories to describe impairment in the shoulder, including shoulder amputation, abnormal shoulder motion, peripheral nerve disorders, subluxation/dislocation, and joint arthroplasty. This article clarifies appropriate methods for rating shoulder impairment in a specific patient, particularly with reference to the AMA Guides, Section 3.1j, Shoulder, Section 3.1k, Impairment of the Upper Extremity Due to Peripheral Nerve Disorders, and Section 3.1m, Impairment Due to Other Disorders of the Upper Extremity. A table shows shoulder motions and associated degrees of motion and can be used in assessing abnormal range of motion. Assessments of shoulder impairment due to peripheral nerve lesion also requires assessment of sensory loss (or presence of nerve pain) or motor deficits, and these may be categorized to the level of the spinal nerves (C5 to T1). Table 23 is useful regarding impairment from persistent joint subluxation or dislocation, and Table 27 can be helpful in assessing impairment of the upper extremity after arthroplasty of specific bones of joints. Although inter-rater reliability has been reasonably good, the validity of the upper extremity impairment rating has been questioned, and further research in industrial medicine and physical disability is required.


2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 383-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Na Jin Seo ◽  
Leah R. Enders ◽  
Binal Motawar ◽  
Marcella L. Kosmopoulos ◽  
Mojtaba Fathi-Firoozabad

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (14) ◽  
pp. 1862-1870 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward J Fox ◽  
Clyde Markowitz ◽  
Angela Applebee ◽  
Xavier Montalban ◽  
Jerry S Wolinsky ◽  
...  

Background: Upper extremity (UE) impairment is common with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Objective: This exploratory analysis examined the effects of ocrelizumab on confirmed progression (CP) and confirmed improvement (CI) in UE impairment in patients from ORATORIO. Methods: Patients with PPMS received ocrelizumab 600 mg or placebo every 24 weeks for ⩾120 weeks. The Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) was administered at baseline (BL) and every 12 weeks thereafter. Prespecified exploratory endpoints included change in 9HPT time and proportion of patients with CP of ⩾20% in 9HPT. Analysis populations included intention-to-treat (ITT) patients and subgroups stratified by BL 9HPT time and Expanded Disability Status Scale. Post hoc analyses included the proportion of patients achieving more severe thresholds of CP and the proportion achieving CI in 9HPT. Results: Among ITT patients, ocrelizumab significantly reduced the change in 9HPT time over 120 weeks, the risk of CP of ⩾20% in 9HPT time for both hands and the risk of more severe 9HPT progression versus placebo. Numerical trends also favoured ocrelizumab versus placebo with respect to achieving CI. Consistent directional trends were observed in subgroup analyses. Conclusion: Ocrelizumab reduces the risk of UE disability progression and may increase the possibility of improvement versus placebo in PPMS.


2011 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 402-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Rundquist ◽  
Michelle Dumit ◽  
Jeannie Hartley ◽  
Kendall Schultz ◽  
Margaret A. Finley

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document