A model to facilitate implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health into prosthetics and orthotics. (October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jarl, Gustav; Ramstrand, Nerrolyn
• Is Part Of: Prosthetics and orthotics international. Volume 42:Number 5(2018)
• Page Start: 468
• Page End: 475
• Publication Date: 2018-10
• Subjects: Orthotics -- prosthetics -- rehabilitation -- International Classification of Functioning -- Disability and Health -- treatment outcomes; Orthopedic apparatus -- Periodicals; Prosthesis -- Periodicals; Implants, Artificial -- Periodicals; 617.905
• DOI: 10.1177/0309364617729925
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0309-3646

Abstract

Background: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health is a classification of human functioning and disability and is based on a biopsychosocial model of health. As such, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health seems suitable as a basis for constructing models defining the clinical P&O process. The aim was to use International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to facilitate development of such a model. Proposed model: A model, the Prosthetic and Orthotic Process (POP) model, is proposed. The Prosthetic and Orthotic Process model is based on the concepts of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and comprises four steps in a cycle: (1) Assessment, including the medical history and physical examination of the patient. (2) Goals, specified on four levels including those related to participation, activity, body functions and structures and technical requirements of the device. (3) Intervention, in which the appropriate course of action is determined based on the specified goal and evidence-based practice. (4) Evaluation of outcomes, where the outcomes are assessed and compared to the corresponding goals. After the evaluation of goal fulfilment, the first cycle in the process is complete, and a broad evaluation is now made including overriding questions about the patient's satisfaction with the outcomes and the process. This evaluation will determine if the process should be ended or if another cycle in the process should be initiated. Conclusion: The Prosthetic and Orthotic Process model can provide a common understanding of the P&O process. Concepts of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health have been incorporated into the model to facilitate communication with other rehabilitation professionals and encourage a holistic and patient-centred approach in clinical practice. Clinical relevance: The Prosthetic and Orthotic Process model can support the implementation of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in P&O practice, thereby providing a common understanding of the P&O process and a common language to facilitate communication with other rehabilitation professionals.