Clinical decision-making in functional and hyperkinetic movement disorders

Neurology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra M.A. van der Salm ◽  
Anne-Fleur van Rootselaar ◽  
Daniëlle C. Cath ◽  
Rob J. de Haan ◽  
Johannes H.T.M. Koelman ◽  
...  

Objective:Functional or psychogenic movement disorders (FMD) present a diagnostic challenge. To diagnose FMD, clinicians must have experience with signs typical of FMD and distinguishing features from other hyperkinetic disorders. The aim of this study was to clarify the decision-making process of expert clinicians while diagnosing FMD, myoclonus, and tics.Methods:Thirty-nine movement disorders experts rated 60 patients using a standardized web-based survey resembling clinical practice. It provided 5 steps of incremental information: (1) visual first impression of the patient, (2) medical history, (3) neurologic examination on video, (4) the Bereitschaftspotential (BP), and (5) psychiatric evaluation. After full evaluation of each case, experts were asked which diagnostic step was decisive. In addition, interim switches in diagnosis after each informational step were calculated.Results:After full evaluation, the experts annotated the first impression of the patients as decisive in 18.5% of cases. Medical history was considered decisive in 33.3% of cases. Neurologic examination was considered decisive in 39.7%, the BP in 8%, and the psychiatric interview in 0.5% of cases. Most diagnostic switches occurred after addition of the medical history (34.5%). Addition of the neurologic examination led to 13.8% of diagnostic switches. The BP results led to diagnostic switches in 7.2% of cases. Psychiatric evaluation resulted in the lowest number of diagnostic switches (2.7% of cases).Conclusions:Experts predominantly rely on clinical assessment to diagnose FMD. Importantly, ancillary tests do not determine the final diagnosis of this expert panel. In general, the experts infrequently changed their differential diagnosis.

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 (mar20 2) ◽  
pp. bcr2014207449-bcr2014207449 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Peila ◽  
P. Mortara ◽  
A. Cicerale ◽  
L. Pinessi

1995 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 289
Author(s):  
R. Kleissen ◽  
F. Brockmeier ◽  
L. Schaake ◽  
J. Buurke

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document