A simulation of hand impairments: Effects on upper extremity function and implications toward medical impairment rating and disability determination

Objectives: To determine whether simulation of significant impairment of the hand will have a predictable impact on degree of functional loss at the wrist and hand.Design: Single subject repeat measures using before-after trial comparisons and healthy volunteer subjects.Setting: Occupational therapy section of a large academic medical center.Other Participants: Twenty adult volunteer student subjects from an occupational therapy education (OTE) department were included. All were between ages 18 and 43 years, right hand dominant, and in excellent general health. There were 19 women and 1 man, reflecting gender distribution of the OTE student body.Intervention: A simulated fusion of the carpometacarpal (CMC) joint of the thumb was achieved by immobilization in an individually fabricated splint designed to maximally restrict motion at the first CMC joint. Impairment ratings (baseline vs splinted) according to the AMA Guides were obtained by Greenleaf testing, and upper extremity function was quantitatively assessed before and after splinting.Main Outcome Measures: Measures of upper extremity function included grip and pinch strength, wrist torque, and speed of performance on the Valpar Small Tools test, Jebsen Hand Function test, and an exploratory measure, the Functional Life Activity Test (FLAT).Results: Significant impairments were achieved for all subjects after splinting and according to Greenleaf testing. Splinting resulted in significant reductions in grip and pinch strength, wrist torque, and significant slowing of performance on the Valpar, Jebsen, and FLAT tests. Regressions of degree of impairment on degree of functional loss after splinting, and according to each of the above measures, were not significant.Conclusions: Impairment of the hand was simulated to a mild-to-moderate degree as measured according to the AMA Guides. This imposed significant reductions in motion at key joints of the wrist and hand as well as significant reductions in grip and pinch strength and wrist torque. A corresponding and significant slowing of performance on a variety of measures of upper extremity function of an industrial and nonindustrial nature was also seen. However, and for the first time, correlation and regression reveals that it is not possible to predict degree of functional loss attributable to degree of impairment for the hand. It thus appears that, for mild-to-moderate clinical impairments, the associated impairment rating is a poor estimator of functional loss at the hand and should be used cautiously, if at all, as a criterion for disability determination.     

Why is it so hard to do the right thing in wound care?

“Doing the right thing” in wound care is not an easy task. Studies suggest that 3 factors determine compliance with performing basic wound care from an evidence‐based medicine perspective: complexity, cognitive effort, and the compensation system. Two models were explored to investigate compliance with basic wound care at hospital based wound centers: offloading of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and compression bandaging for venous leg ulcers. Using a very large wound‐care registry it was determined that only 6% of DFU patients received the gold standard of care for offloading, i.e., total contact casting (TCC), but among those patients who received it, the average cost of treatment was half the cost of those who did not. Although inexpensive to administer, TCC is a relatively time‐consuming procedure which is poorly reimbursed. Other DFU treatments such as bilaminate skin, are more costly but are reimbursed much more generously. Thus, the reimbursement system favors the use of more expensive therapies over more economical ones. In the case of venous leg ulcers (VLUs), only 17% of patients received adequate compression. Provision of adequate compression among VLU patients has been similarly hindered by inadequate reimbursement policy. Lack of familiarity with clinical practice guidelines increases the cognitive effort for clinicians. Improving the economic model to favor the provision of effective basic care, creating easier‐to‐use products, and making clinical practice guidelines available at the point of service may make it easier to “do the right thing(s)” in wound care.