Dylan Borrenpohl1, Brian Kaluf2, Matthew J Major3. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Prosthetic and Orthotic Care, Inc, St. Louis, MO. 2. Ability Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc, Greenville, SC. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: matthew-major@northwestern.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the opinion of the prosthetic clinical care community on the Medicare Functional Classification Level (K-level) assignment process to classify the mobility and rehabilitation potential of persons with lower-limb loss, including limitations and practicalities involved with the integration of outcome measures (OMs) into the clinical practice framework for K-level assignment. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: English online questionnaire with built-in logic. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of prosthetics practitioners (N=236). Data were analyzed only for U.S. practitioners (n=213). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective responses to 19 multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they were the sole determinant in the K-level assignment process, while 43% indicated that it was a collaborative process with other health care professionals. Sixty-nine percent of respondents reported using standardized OMs to assist in K-level assignment, and most did not agree that commonly reported barriers to implementation (eg, lack of time and training) were relevant. Sixty-seven percent of respondents did not believe the K-level system can accurately assign a level of rehabilitation potential, with 75% agreeing that incorporating OMs into clinical practice would enhance objectivity of the K-level assignment process. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that most prosthetics practitioners are involved in the K-level assignment at some level, and most agreed that there are considerable limitations with this system. To address these issues, many practitioners are using OMs to assess various aspects of patient mobility and rehabilitation potential, and minimize the subjectivity of the assignment process.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the opinion of the prosthetic clinical care community on the Medicare Functional Classification Level (K-level) assignment process to classify the mobility and rehabilitation potential of persons with lower-limb loss, including limitations and practicalities involved with the integration of outcome measures (OMs) into the clinical practice framework for K-level assignment. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: English online questionnaire with built-in logic. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of prosthetics practitioners (N=236). Data were analyzed only for U.S. practitioners (n=213). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective responses to 19 multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they were the sole determinant in the K-level assignment process, while 43% indicated that it was a collaborative process with other health care professionals. Sixty-nine percent of respondents reported using standardized OMs to assist in K-level assignment, and most did not agree that commonly reported barriers to implementation (eg, lack of time and training) were relevant. Sixty-seven percent of respondents did not believe the K-level system can accurately assign a level of rehabilitation potential, with 75% agreeing that incorporating OMs into clinical practice would enhance objectivity of the K-level assignment process. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that most prosthetics practitioners are involved in the K-level assignment at some level, and most agreed that there are considerable limitations with this system. To address these issues, many practitioners are using OMs to assess various aspects of patient mobility and rehabilitation potential, and minimize the subjectivity of the assignment process.
Authors: Emma Haldane Beisheim; John Robert Horne; Ryan Todd Pohlig; Jaclyn Megan Sions Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Chelsey B Anderson; Andrew J Kittelson; Shane R Wurdeman; Matthew J Miller; Jason W Stoneback; Cory L Christiansen; Dawn M Magnusson Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 2.439
Authors: Sara J Morgan; Kimberly Rowe; Chantelle C Fitting; Ignacio A Gaunaurd; Anat Kristal; Geoffrey S Balkman; Rana Salem; Alyssa M Bamer; Brian J Hafner Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Jaclyn Megan Sions; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Tara Jo Manal; Sarah Carolyn Smith; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Jason S Hoellwarth; Kevin Tetsworth; John Kendrew; Norbert Venantius Kang; Oscar van Waes; Qutaiba Al-Maawi; Claudia Roberts; Munjed Al Muderis Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.082
Authors: Emma Haldane Beisheim; Elisa Sarah Arch; John Robert Horne; Jaclyn Megan Sions Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 1.895