Baseline Functional Status May Predict Decisional Regret Following Robotic Prostatectomy

2012 ◽  
Vol 188 (6) ◽  
pp. 2213-2218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh J. Lavery ◽  
Adam W. Levinson ◽  
Adele R. Hobbs ◽  
Dov Sebrow ◽  
Nihal E. Mohamed ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e675-e675a
Author(s):  
H.J. Lavery ◽  
D. Sebrow ◽  
A.R. Hobbs ◽  
N.E. Mohamed ◽  
M.A. Diefenbach ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 187 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh J. Lavery ◽  
Adele Hobbs ◽  
Dov Sebrow ◽  
Adrien Phalen ◽  
Adam W. Levinson ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Craig Uejo ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract Evaluators who use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, should understand the significant changes that have occurred (as well as the Clarifications and Corrections) in impairment ratings for disorders of the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and pelvis. The new methodology is an expansion of the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method used in the fifth edition, but the criteria for defining impairment are revised, and the impairment value within a class is refined by information related to functional status, physical examination findings, and the results of clinical testing. Because current medical evidence does not support range-of-motion (ROM) measurements of the spine as a reliable indicator of specific pathology or permanent functional status, ROM is no longer used as a basis for defining impairment. The DRE method should standardize and simplify the rating process, improve validity, and provide a more uniform methodology. Table 1 shows examples of spinal injury impairment rating (according to region of the spine and category, with comments about the diagnosis and the resulting class assignment); Table 2 shows examples of spine impairment by region of the spine, class, diagnosis, and associated whole person impairment ratings form the sixth and fifth editions of the AMA Guides.


2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-8
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, explains that independent medical evaluations (IMEs) are not the same as impairment evaluations, and the evaluation must be designed to provide the data to answer the questions asked by the requesting client. This article continues discussions from the September/October issue of The Guides Newsletter and examines what occurs after the examinee arrives in the physician's office. First are orientation and obtaining informed consent, and the examinee must understand that there is no patient–physician relationship and the physician will not provide treatment bur rather will send a report to the client who requested the IME. Many physicians ask the examinee to complete a questionnaire and a series of pain inventories before the interview. Typical elements of a complete history are shown in a table. An equally detailed physical examination follows a meticulous history, and standardized forms for reporting these findings are useful. Pain and functional status inventories may supplement the evaluation, and the examining physician examines radiographic and diagnostic studies. The physician informs the interviewee when the evaluation is complete and, without discussing the findings, asks the examinee to complete a satisfaction survey and reviews the latter to identify and rectify any issues before the examinee leaves. A future article will discuss high-quality IME reports.


2005 ◽  
Vol 173 (4S) ◽  
pp. 412-412
Author(s):  
Ashutosh Tewari ◽  
Assaad El-Hakim ◽  
Peter N. Schlegel ◽  
Mani Menon ◽  
Deirdre M. Coll

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document