Rozina H Bhimani1, Cynthia Peden-McAlpine2, Joseph Gaugler3, Lisa Carney Anderson4. 1. University of Minnesota, School of Nursing, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: bhim0001@umn.edu. 2. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: peden001@umn.edu. 3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: gaug0015@umn.edu. 4. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: ander350@umn.edu.
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of this study were to describe spasticity trajectories as a function of time, gender, and diagnosis and to explore the correspondence between patient and clinician scores of spasticity. BACKGROUND: Discrepancy between examiner assessment and patient rating of spasticity exists. Assessments that include the patient perspective are critical for patient safety. This mixed-method study provided patient descriptors of spasticity integrated with clinical scales. METHOD: Twenty-three participants provided spasticity descriptors and rated their spasticity based on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores. A clinician evaluated spasticity daily using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). This resulted in 1976 points of data for analysis. RESULTS: Spasticity was highly variable over time. The empirical correspondence between the clinician-rated MAS and the patient-rated NRS revealed that patient and examiner understanding of spasticity were diverged considerably. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical evaluation protocols should include patient reports on spasticity. Knowledge about patient word choice can enhance patient-provider communication.
AIMS: The aims of this study were to describe spasticity trajectories as a function of time, gender, and diagnosis and to explore the correspondence between patient and clinician scores of spasticity. BACKGROUND: Discrepancy between examiner assessment and patient rating of spasticity exists. Assessments that include the patient perspective are critical for patient safety. This mixed-method study provided patient descriptors of spasticity integrated with clinical scales. METHOD: Twenty-three participants provided spasticity descriptors and rated their spasticity based on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores. A clinician evaluated spasticity daily using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). This resulted in 1976 points of data for analysis. RESULTS:Spasticity was highly variable over time. The empirical correspondence between the clinician-rated MAS and the patient-rated NRS revealed that patient and examiner understanding of spasticity were diverged considerably. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical evaluation protocols should include patient reports on spasticity. Knowledge about patient word choice can enhance patient-provider communication.