Thursday, December 18, 2008
The email expressed excitement that awareness of sensory processing disorder was growing. I think that awareness of any problems that children have that can impact their ability to function is good - but I remain unconvinced that we are anywhere near ready for DSM inclusion of sensory processing disorder, if such a unitary disorder even exists. I have blogged about this topic before here.
As the title of this entry suggests, my primary sticking point is the problem of empiricism vs. innatism. Empirical analysis suggests a process where there is NO prior knowledge and everything learned is written upon the 'blank slate' of consciousness. One could argue that the seedwork of sensory integration research completed by Ayres was the closest that we may come to a truly empirical approach to the issue of sensory integration. Her diagnostic typologies were reported along with the publication of the SCSIT in 1972 and later the SIPT in 1989. Even the SIPT typologies were likely 'polluted' through statistical factor and cluster analysis but still this represented excellent sophistication at the time.
Fast forward 20 years from the SIPT - and we have done too little. We have been waylaid with pseudoscience of brushing and Brain Gym and auditory interventions and other professionals have confused Ayres' concepts with everything from Doman-Delacato approaches to Snoezelen. It has been a mess.
Parham, et al (2007) began the excellent discussion on the fidelity problem and I really thought that this represented a turning point. Ayres' original typologies drove us toward fidelity, but there are problems with the test - and there was a need to re-think and evolve the concepts. Unfortunately, this is where the field has fallen short: instead of developing the theory and developing clinically useful tools that could inform us for refinement of appropriate clusters and factors - we fell into a much lower level of evidence based development - and instead came up with the so-called empirical analysis completed by Miller et al (2007). There is little doubt in my mind that sensory processing difficulties exist, but I don't see any evidence that helps me understand how to tease these difficulties apart from other diagnostic entities or even from simple childhood behavioral difficulties. We just don't have the measurement tools to do this with any degree of statistical reliability much less clinical validity.
So experience is great and developing typologies based on many expert opinions is interesting - but it seems like such a giant step backwards from test development and clinical diagnostics. I believe that the DSM folks would be much more impressed with sound diagnostic tests and an evolved SIPT. If I was considering sensory processing disorder for inclusion I would want some real clinical tools to diagnose it and that actually provided some evidence that such a disorder exists and actually occurs outside of other conditions.
My point here is that I don't think we are really using empirical methodologies when it comes to identifying so-called sensory processing disorders. Rather, we are relying on the conceptual innatism that has been passed on to us from our forebears - and as inspirational as those fountains were - it really is time to move on to more evidence based methods.
Ayres, A.J. (1972) Southern California Sensory Integration Tests, Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Ayres, A.J. (1989) Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests, Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Miller, L. J., Anzalone, M. E., Lane, S. J., Cermak, S. A. & Osten, E.T. (2007). Concept evolution in sensory integration: A proposed nosology for diagnosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 61, 135-140.
Parham, L.D., Cohn, E.S., Spitzer, S., et al. Fidelity in sensory integration intervention research. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 216-227.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
New York State regulations that govern PT practice on this issue are quite clear. They state:
- New York State law restricts the practice of physical therapy to licensed physical therapists or certified physical therapist assistants. Individuals who are not licensed or certified may not provide physical therapy services. Aides may perform non-patient related activities such as secretarial, clerical and housekeeping tasks. Additionally, aides may act as an extra set of hands for the physical therapist or physical therapist assistant who is actually providing the treatment.
My working assumption is that so many people calling for the job are not lying - and they must have been used in illegal capacities in previous jobs. That is concerning for the PT profession.
I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics site to do a little research on this issue and found contributing confusion. BOTH the pages for OT Assistants and PT Assistants are entitled "XXX Assistant and Aides." I was a little shocked at some of the salary and work site data that was listed for 'aides' and it makes me wonder. Either people confuse the terms 'aides' and 'assistants' when they are reporting their job titles, or there are an awful lot of unlicensed people doing the jobs of assistants and making a pretty reasonable salary. That is unfortunate for the true assistants who are licensed.
So what is the truth - as it is not discernible in the statistics??? Is there a lot of illegal use of aides to do assistant work? Do regulatory bodies care about the confusion and are they 'looking the other way' and allowing non-licensed people to do work that was previously protected for licensed professionals? And as there is no similar confusion at the occupational therapist and physical therapist levels is this a sign that the public does not believe that the assistant level is important to certify or regulate?
I believe that as long as we have educational programs, certifications, and laws that we should follow them. But if there is a latent disinterest in upholding the laws - isn't it appropriate to throw this issue on the table for discussion?
Thursday, December 04, 2008
But here is my OPINION that I want to rant about:
Everyone needs to go and read the recently published Joint Guidance on the Application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Helath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to Student Health Records.
This is the most recent guidance document in a string of legal opinions and guidance documents that have been kicked around since HIPAA came into effect and schools were left trying to figure out what it meant. The bottom line problem is that we have created a system in the United States where a public health program (Medicaid) morphed into a broad funding stream for a variety of educational programs. The original stated purpose of Medicaid was for medically based interventions (and thus its common designation as a 'health insurance' system of sorts) - except that now it also pays for health related services in schools - but those health related services from the school's perspective have to be 'educationally related.'
For background purposes, FERPA came first and is a law governing privacy of educational records. HIPAA came second and is a law governing privacy of protected health information - except that the legal eagles cross-referenced and excluded FERPA from HIPAA in some situations. The confusion exponentially grows since schools are now in the business of billing insurance companies (including Medicaid) for some services. What is left in the confusing aftermath is a pair of legs devoid of a brain, each wondering who is supposed to take the first step forward.
School officials, from my experience, have no idea how to solve the problem - and what ends up happening is that on a regular basis I am witness to information being released to people and places that it should never be released to. The overwhelming majority of the time this release is not malicious but nevertheless it is problematic. Also, parents are infrequently aware of FERPA exclusions to need for consent - and when so-called protected health information is morphed into an educational 'treatment record' that is then FERPA controlled it is interesting to see who can get access to very personal information that someone initially thought was simply a private medical record.
So we have a new guidance document straight from DHHS and DOE. It is quite clear - to lawyers probably and those who like to rant about such things on blogs. People who are on the front lines of this issue will still grapple with the complexity of educational vs. medical records and make many unintentional mistakes. Individuals or parents can always address confidentiality breaches after the fact, but that will invariably leave people dissatisfied and wondering why the system was so vulnerable in the first place.
Our practice: we get consents from EVERYONE for EVERYTHING. We NEVER re-disclose information and only release our own documentation. We also educate families to exercise EXTREME caution in who they decide to give information to. We also don't release ANYTHING unless we have a direct and specific consent or a court order. Sometimes we have even cleared the court orders with our attorney just to be safe.
Let's just call it all broken and start over. Privacy rights should not be so complex and I can absolutely guarantee that individuals are not served well when the waters are this muddy.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
1. A great blog post was brought to my attention recently. This should be required reading for all OTs... Emily writes in 'A life less ordinary' about "To OT or not to OT." Don't stop at that one entry - keep reading. This blog is so full of excellent writing and parent perspective that it will keep you busy for a very long time.
2. Connor Gifford is a young man who has Down Syndrome and he co-wrote a book entitled "America according to Connor Gifford." This book has a clarity to it that is difficult to find in writing about historical events. Go buy it. Today.
3. Ori and Rom Brafman wrote the book "Sway: The irresistible pull of irrational behavior." This entire book is fascinating, but OTs will be particularly interested in the chapter on 'the bipolar epidemic and the chameleon effect." When you read this chapter you can't avoid the questions that will enter your mind about self-perpetuating circle that drives away science in the diagnostic process. Sensory integration, anyone?
4. Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. I read this once every few years because I enjoy the process of the protagonist's development. Siddhartha achieves his goals and does so by his own unique path. It is an interesting allegory for an occupational therapy process of client-centeredness and self-direction in occupational choice.
There was a lot more - but these were the most interesting.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sometimes I get comments directly on the blog but those are more rare. I guess that many people prefer anonymity and that is fine.
Many of the comments are from anonymous people and I am frequently torn about whether or not I want to advance their comments. For example, someone may agree or disagree with something that I have written and they want to advance their own opinion on it - but they don't want to put their name with their comment.
This is easily fixed by disabling anonymous comments but some of the most thought-provoking comments are anonymous. All my life I have been fascinated by anonymous self expression - like carving into picnic tables or graffiti or on publicly posted leaflets or pamphlets. That is a topic for another day.
Many of the comments that never get published here are links to people's proprietary websites that sell products and I never wanted my blog to become a trolling site for potential customers. I get the whole 'long-tail' phenomenon but that is not what this blog is about.
Another category of comments that never get published are drive-by hit jobs on people or ideas or products. I don't mind publishing someone's opinion about people or ideas or products (even if their opinion is about me or the things I write) but if they want to engage in drive-by hit jobs then I figure they can at least let people know who they are.
Anyway, sometimes I wish that the dialogue was a little broader but it is what it is. Of the thousands and thousands of hits this site gets we usually only get a comment or so a week. That makes my blog more about my own rants then about bilateral dialogue but I suppose that can change since this is a dynamic observation of the situation.
So my policy that is in effect today is that I prefer people to take responsibility for their comments. If people take responsibility it is more likely their comments will be published. The exceptions are if something is particularly witty or poignant or if I change my mind.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
- use of the Tomatis Electronic Ear which has been banned by the FDA
- use of unlicensed persons to practice occupational therapy
- fraudulent billing practices
I previously wrote about concerns with the Tomatis program and the FDA ban here.
So in summary this Tomatis progam is not generally accepted but some occupational therapists continue to flirt with these programs. I don't understand why.
I called The Spectrum Center today to get more information and they told me that they do not practice occupational therapy in New York state. They are still using the Tomatis device and they told me that they use a combined approach that includes sensory integration techniques and Tomatis. But it is not OT. On their website they call it "vestibular re integration" and claim "80 percent success in improving if not curing these 4000 autistic children."
This is just conjecture - but based on the current prices they reported to me ($400 for an evaluation and $7440 for the 'therapy') that is a windfall of over $30,000,000.00 dollars. That's not a bad days work, especially for someone who had to surrender their license to practice occupational therapy.
The rabbit hole continues - a Dr. Ron Minson owns Integrated Listening Systems. His work is based largely off of Tomatis as stated on his website - but rather than using the banned FDA device his system relies on music recorded on an IPod. They also have a 'device' that they sell (the iLs 1000) but I don't know if this is related to the banned FDA device.
Interestingly, in a fascinating document available online that references the Dejean case, the FDA is asked to evaluate the Tomatis version of the device. Referenced in the petition is that manipulation of the Freedom of Speech principle would allow filtered music to be streamed online or distributed on compact disc. The CDs or online streamed filtered music would presumably be protected as 'Free Speech.'
There are a plethora of 'filtered music' CDs and programs, like Dr. Minson's, that are being marketed and distributed in an apparent loophole around the FDA ban. So with all this filtered music - where are the devices located that MADE the filtered music?
So why mention Dr. Minson specifically? Well he is directly associated with Dr. Lucy Miller and together they co-founded the Sensory Therapies and Research (STAR) facility. The SPD Foundation (formerly the KID Foundation) is a Colorado public charity sponsored in part by STAR Center. According to this page, iLs makes donations and training discounts for the benefit of The SPD Foundation.
The SPD Foundation, from my perspective, has contributed significantly to the knowledge base of sensory processing disorders. But why be entangled with Tomatis and similar programs that are under such heavy criticism. At a time when people are trying to determine if SPD is eligible for inclusion in the DSM, how can alignment with Tomatis help the cause?
A bottom line issue remains - and I am still waiting for someone to stand up and explain this - but I believe that this auditory intervention is only tenuously related to occupational therapy practice. Occupational therapists don't typically intervene with direct auditory stimulation in any other interventions - so how did some practitioners come to think that this is within the OT scope of practice?
When most people think of auditory evaluations or auditory interventions they obviously think that is within the scope of practice of an audiologist or perhaps a speech pathologist. If you search the American Academy of Audiology website for 'Tomatis' there are no results returned. Anyone out there beside me wonder why? Here is the most recent document on the subject from the American Speech Language and Hearing Association. Do OTs know something that the speech therapy professionals don't?
I think that OT as a profession needs to come to grips with this issue. Here is my attempt to start a conversation.
edit 4/21/11 - fixed a few broken links that were moved/redirected.
edit 3/27/12 - again! fixed broken links that were moved/redirected. Does someone not like this post? Also, the sensorydefensiveness.com website now lists a page in (apparent) Japanese (according to Google Translation) about sushi. TOO FUNNY.
Monday, October 13, 2008
(1) increase patient referrals to providers of key support services for women who have received a positive diagnosis for Down syndrome, or other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions, as well as to provide up-to-date information on the range of outcomes for individuals living with the diagnosed condition, including physical, developmental, educational, and psychosocial outcomes;
(2) strengthen existing networks of support through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and other patient and provider outreach programs; and
(3) ensure that patients receive up-to-date, evidence-based information about the accuracy of the test.
This law, while opposed by some ardent partisans, had strong support from people on both sides of the abortion debate. Much of the impetus behind this legislation can be tracked back to the efforts of people like Dr. Brian Skotko. I strongly recommend you go to his site and read some of his work.
I read rather widely and this new law has barely gotten any attention.This law will strengthen the informed consent process around prenatal testing. Spread the word - this may be one of the most significant disability rights laws that we have seen in a very long time. It doesn't matter what side of the abortion debate you may be on - this law is a major step forward in providing real support for families and children.
Mansfield, C., Hopfer, S., Marteau, T. (1999). Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. Prenatal Diagnosis, 19(9): 808–812.
Skotko, B. (2005). Mothers of children with Down syndrome reflect on their postnatal support. Pediatrics, 115: 65-77
Skotko, B. (2005). Prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome: Mothers who continued their pregnancies evaluate their health care providers. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 192: 670-77
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The purpose of this project was to explore complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) by using current models of sensory modulation disorder (SMD) and by using narrative interview. Sensory processing theory as grounded in sensory integration theory (Ayres, 1979, p. 5) and later modified by Dunn (1997) provided the background neurophysiological models for this study. Dunn stated that there is a relationship between neurological sensory thresholds and observed behavior (1997). The Sensory Profile was used to provide an assessment of this relationship based on the report of patients who have CRPS. This type of test that measures behavioral responses was used in this study to inform a narrative inquiry to understand the impact that these disorders have on occupation.
Current scholars are integrating sensory integration theory into occupation-based intervention approaches by re-examining ways to broaden Ayres’ original concepts (Parham & Mailloux, 2001, p. 330). Although Ayres may not have explicitly described the impact that disordered sensory systems have on occupations, these concepts can be applied to develop a richer understanding of what it means to have sensory processing difficulties.
Some practice models identify the relationship between the individual, the occupation that is being performed, and the environment. The P-E-O model (Law, Cooper, Strong, Stewart, Rigby, & Letts, 1996) states that behavior can’t be separated from its contextual influences. This type of model was helpful in describing the relationships between personal/constitutional factors, chosen occupations, and illness factors for people who had CRPS.
My initial interest in this topic was generated by seeing patients who developed CRPS and learning that the recommended occupational therapy treatment protocols for this condition include sympathetic stress loading (Carlson & Watson, 1988; Phillips, Katz, & Harden, 2000). These protocols for sympathetic stress loading seemed very similar to the recently popularized “sensory diet” protocol (Wilbarger & Wilbarger, 2002, p. 335-338) used for people who had SMD. My familiarity with both patient populations of adult orthopedics and pediatrics provided perspective and interest in the topic. I continued to read extensively on the topic of pain and pain sensation, initially motivated after reading the groundbreaking work of Melzack & Wall (1965). My interest in the subject has never diminished and this has led me to the literature contained herein and the interest in completing this project.
Studies of sympathetically mediated pain provide evidence that hypotheses regarding central processing may be useful in describing the pathological mechanisms involved in CRPS. Still, a larger question that remains unanswered is whether or not there was an increased risk of developing CRPS because of the sympathetic processing differences or if those differences became evident as a function of the CRPS. To date, there have not been any predictive epidemiological studies of CRPS that would address this basic question.
There is potential utility for exploring the relationships between CRPS and sensory processing. First, if there is a population of people who have SMD and are more at risk for developing CRPS it could be helpful to know who they are so that early intervention could be attempted as soon as they incur an injury to a limb. Second, if there is an underlying mechanism of sensory processing dysfunction that predisposes people to CRPS, this would provide a more solid physiological explanation for what occupational therapists currently identify as SMD. The research that has been completed on CRPS may provide important information for helping occupational therapists understand SMD.
Although any implied linkages between these conditions are theoretical at this time, identifying common features of the disorders could assist in understanding them both at a deeper level.
Complex regional pain syndrome
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a disorder characterized by chronic pain that is disproportionate to the trauma that caused the pain. It is important for clinicians to be able to understand different types of pain, and there are clear distinctions between acute nociceptive pain and chronic pain. Nociceptive pain is related to the degree of receptor stimulation that is caused by a specific tissue injury, and involves the normal activation of the nociceptive system by noxious stimuli (Kandel & Jessell, 1991, p. 386-7). By contrast, chronic pain may occur by continued irritation of the nociceptors, which can cause neuroactive, biochemical, inflammatory, or vasoactive effects such as histamine release that can activate or increase the sensitivity in the cellular/receptor environment (p. 386). Over time, peripheral to central processing may also modify nociception, (p. 389-92) and behavioral/emotional states may also influence the perception of pain (p. 398). Chronic pain syndromes can often lead to long-term disability and loss of occupational functioning; for this reason they have been studied extensively and are of interest to occupational therapy practitioners.
Complex regional pain syndrome has been called many different names such as reflex sympathetic dystrophy, causalgia, and Sudeck's atrophy. This disorder commonly occurs in the limbs following an injury. Typical features include dramatic changes in the color and temperature of the skin over the affected limb or body part, intense burning pain, skin sensitivity, sweating, swelling, decreased joint mobility, and changes in nail and hair growth patterns (NINDS, 2003).
The International Association for the Study of Pain developed a classification system that delineates CRPS into two distinct categories (Stanton-Hicks, Janig, Hassenbusch, Haddox, Boas, & Wilson, 1995). In CRPS I the individual may experience regional pain and sensory changes following a trauma. In CRPS II there is also regional pain and sensory changes but a nerve lesion is identifiable. CRPS I is classically associated with the previous entity defined as reflex sympathetic dystrophy; CRPS II is associated with the previously defined condition of causalgia (Baron & Wasner, 2001).
There has been considerable debate regarding the etiology and pathophysiology of CRPS. Sympathetically maintained and sympathetically independent pain categories are phenomena that are referenced in the current classification system (Stanton-Hicks, Janig, Hassenbusch, Haddox, Boas, & Wilson, 1995). Sympathetically mediated pain is typically identified by its amelioration after treatment of sympathetic-blocking intervention, while sympathetically independent pain does not (Manning, 2000). However, it is unclear if these two classes are entirely independent of each other or if they can occur at the same time. This distinction may be important in understanding and developing intervention for CRPS.
Several researchers have investigated sympathetic nervous system functioning in patients who have complex regional pain syndromes. Specifically, several studies indicate that the nervous systems of people who have these syndromes are measurably different than normal. For example, normal inhibitory influences on pain during sympathetic arousal are compromised in the majority of patients with CRPS (Drummond, Finch, Skipworth, & Blockey, 2001). Evidence also exists that patients who have sympathetically mediated chronic pain have widely spread prefrontal hyperactivity, increased activity in the anterior cingulate, and decreased contralateral thalamic activity as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (Apkarian, Thomas, Krauss, & Szeverenyi (2001).
Another hypothesis is that there is brain reorganization in the primary somatosensory cortex of patients who have CRPS and that the degree of neural reorganization as measured by magnetoencephalography is directly related to the degree of pain (Maihofner, Handwerker, Neundorfer, & Birklein, 2003). Another study identified a change in the central representation of somatosensation, most likely in the thalamus or cortex, and that sensory threshold are higher on the affected side of the body in people who have CRPS (Rommel, Malin, Zenz, & Jänig (2001).
Preliminary studies demonstrate that brain imaging scans are different for people who have CRPS (Juottonen, Gockel, Silen, Hurri, Hari, & Forss, 2002). Other authors (Schwoebel, Friedman, Duda, & Coslett, 2001) found functional neurological changes in patients who have CRPS. Specifically, they state that patients who have CRPS have impaired body schema involving their painful limbs, suggest atypical processing of proprioceptive, somatosensory, and vestibular sensory inputs. These studies provide evidence that hypotheses regarding central processing may be useful in describing the pathological process involved in CRPS.
Differences in neuroendocrine functioning may explain some alterations in central processing of somatosensory inputs. Janig & Baron (2002) state that nociceptor hyperexcitability may be facilitated by sympathetically-released norepinepherine, which in turn may generate a state of central excitability that causes spontaneous and secondary evoked pain. Therefore, the pain and sensory changes seen in CRPS I may be the result of distorted processing of information in the central nervous system involving the somatosensory pathways.
The pattern of progression of symptoms has also been useful in generating hypotheses about the mechanisms underlying these disorders. For example, Maleki, LeBel, Bennett, and Schwartzmann (2000) describe patterns including contiguous spread, independent spread, and mirror spread. Contiguous spread represents localized progression of symptoms close to the initial injury site. Independent spread represents general nervous system susceptibility for CRPS evidenced by symptoms in distal/unrelated parts of the body. Mirror spread represents contralateral processing errors where symptoms are noted on the opposite side of the body to where the injury occurred. These differing patterns all represent different neurological processing of responses to the initial injury.
Some research is beginning to investigate genetic predisposition for developing CRPS. Janig & Baron (2003) and Wasner, Schattschneider, Binder, & Baron (2003) both reviewed studies that identified possible genetic causes. The studies that have been completed are preliminary; controversy remains regarding the role of genetic factors on this disease.
The presence of psychological factors in people who have CRPS has led to ongoing speculation that there may be a psychological basis for these disorders. A biopsychosocial model (Van Houdenhove & Vasquez, 1993) of CRPS suggests that loss of occupational functioning can lead to helplessness, which in turn causes passive coping and stress-related sympathetic overreactivity and higher norepinephrine levels. The authors suggest that these factors contribute to worsening of symptoms. However, although stress responses may exacerbate symptoms it is now generally accepted that there is no common psychological profile of people who have CRPS (Lynch, 1992). Rather, it is believed that CRPS leads to anxiety and depression rather than anxiety and depression leading to CRPS. This is a phenomenon that continues to be the subject of interesting research that has mixed results. For example, Harden et.al. (2003) found that preoperative distress and pain had modest utility in predicting CRPS signs, although there was a high rate of false positive identification. More research is needed to help clarify the relationship between psychological profile, psychogenic predisposition, and CRPS.
Diagnostic tests for CRPS
Diagnostic testing that identifies common parameters of physiologic functioning could be helpful in investigating the possible intersection of CRPS and SMD. However, there is no specific diagnostic test for CRPS. Several medical tests can be used to assist in the diagnosis. Bone scans (Schiepers, 1997) use radiation to identify areas of bone where there may be abnormalities. Infrared thermography (Gulevich, et.al., 1997) measures relative temperature distributions in the limb which may provide information about blood flow and sympathetic activity. Axon reflex testing (Chelimsky, et.al., 1995; Low, Caskey, Tuck, Fealey, & Dyck, 1983), and resting skin temperature/resting sweat output (Chelimsky, et.al., 1995) have also been described in the literature. These are nervous system tests that provide specific information regarding autonomic functioning. Selective tissue conductance (National Pain Foundation, 2003) is a newer diagnostic test that measures galvanic skin responses but it has not been well researched.
In some cases, a sympathetic nerve block can be used to diagnose CRPS in patients with clinical evidence of sympathetically mediated pain; however, not all CRPS is due to sympathetic nerve dysfunction (Rho, Brewer, & Wilson, 2002). Some researchers have tried to identify patients who are at higher risk for CRPS based on other factors including psychological profile, genetics, and sensory processing but none of these are widely accepted and used for diagnostic purposes.
Diagnosis is generally made by the presence of clinical signs and symptoms including dramatic changes in the color and temperature of the skin over the affected limb or body part, intense burning pain, skin sensitivity, sweating, swelling, decreased joint mobility, and changes in nail and hair growth patterns (NINDS, 2003). Additionally, the physician will gather important patient history and rule out any other conditions.
Diagnostic tests for sensory modulation disorders
Pfeiffer & Kinnealey (2003) describe the use of the Adult Sensory Questionnaire (Kinnealey & Oliver, 2002) to determine degree of sensory modulation difficulty but this tool is not widely accessible or commonly used. Kinnealey & Fuiek (1999) also used the Adult Sensory Questionnaire and proposed a model of interrelationship between SMD, anxiety, depression, and pain perception in adults although they noted that more research was needed to clarify these relationships. Preliminary studies (McIntosh, Miller, Shyu, & Hagerman, 1999) support the presence of a physiological basis of SMD, finding that electrodermal responses were larger in children with SMD, excepting those who were non-responders. Additionally, children with atypical electrodermal responses had more parent-reported abnormal behavioral responses to sensation. Miller, et.al. (1999) identified Fragile X syndrome as a clinical condition where baseline hyperarousal may exist because unimodal over-reaction predicted hyperarousal in other sensory modalities. Additionally, Schaaf, Miller, Sewell, & O'Keefe (2003) found that cardiac vagal tone index was significantly decreased for children who had identified sensory processing difficulties. These studies provide preliminary evidence that there is a physiological basis for SMD. All of these studies used the Sensory Challenge Protocol (Miller, et.al., 1999) which is a research tool and is not designed for clinical application. A single case study (Reisman & Gross, 1992) using physiological markers of an adult has also been reported to identify improvements following intervention for SMD.
The Sensory Profile is a standardized assessment used by occupational therapists “to measure a child’s sensory processing abilities and to profile the effect of sensory processing on functional performance in the daily life of a child” (Dunn, 1999, p. 1). Dunn states that there is a relationship between neurological sensory thresholds and observed behavior (1997). The Sensory Profile (Dunn, 1999) provides an assessment of this relationship based on the report of the child’s parent. The Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (Brown & Dunn, 2002) provides an assessment of this relationship based on self-report. These measures are the most widely used and widely accepted standards used by occupational therapists for assessing SMD.
Summary of diagnostic tests
Both CRPS and SMD are disorders that are not easily identified and are typically diagnosed through the use of tools that involve clinical observations of presenting symptoms or a report of those symptoms. Researchers often measure neurophysiologic characteristics to determine the presence of each disorder. Many of those neurophysiologic markers are common to both disorders in that they represent altered sympathetic/autonomic functioning; however, most of those tests are not easy to administer in a clinical environment.
The Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) represents a behavioral self-report of sensory processing. The AASP measures four quadrants of sensory processing as identified by Brown and Dunn (2002). The four quadrants include sensation seeking, sensation avoiding, sensory sensitivity and low registration. Preliminary studies suggest that this format of assessment is an accurate predictor of altered neurophysiologic functioning. Specifically, this four quadrant model was validated through expert rating and skin conductance testing (Brown, Tolefson, Cromwell, & Filion, 2001).
The AASP is easy to administer and it is non-invasive. As there seem to be common underlying features of CRPS and SMD relating to altered sympathetic functioning, this assessment may be clinically useful for predicting sympathetic hyperarousal that may potentially lead to CRPS. Additionally, if the assessment is sensitive enough to identify the relationship between CRPS and SMD it may provide evidence of a common underlying neurological deficit between the two conditions.
Face validity for the use of the AASP for predicting CRPS
The Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile is a sixty item self report questionnaire designed as a “trait measure” (Brown & Dunn, 2002, p.1) of sensory processing, meaning that the individual is supposed to answer regarding how they generally respond to sensory stimulation. It does not measure specific response patterns to specific sensory stimulation. The AASP measures responsivity across categories of taste/smell processing, movement processing, visual processing, touch processing, activity level, and auditory processing (p.2). From these scores the assessment provides a profile of sensory processing across four quadrants: low registration, sensation seeking, sensory sensitivity, and sensation avoiding (p.1.). Dunn’s Model of Sensory Processing (1997) is used to explain the relationship between altered neurological thresholds and the impact that this has on daily life functioning.
Based on previously identified evidence of altered sensory thresholds leading to pain and hyperarousal in people who have CRPS, it seems reasonable to apply Dunn’s model to this population. Although the exaggerated state of sympathetic arousal in people who have CRPS is not clinically identical to hyperarousal in people who have SMD, these two conditions may constitute a continuum of pathology that is reflective of sympathetic nervous system dysfunction.
Literature review does not provide information regarding any possible connections between these disorders, although the presence of parallel studies that examine neurophysiologic/sympathetic markers is intriguing. Occupational therapists who understand these two conditions may assist in elucidating common features that will assist in understanding both CRPS and SMD. The significance of this inquiry is considerable. The ability to identify the population of people who are ‘at-risk’ for developing CRPS would be invaluable for clinical purposes of intervention planning. The significance of this is even greater if this can be determined through the use of a non-invasive self-report questionnaire like the AASP. Additionally, there is only beginning physiologic rationale and understanding of SMD. If a link is present between these disorders CRPS may provide an interesting presentation of sensory-affective hyperarousal that can help occupational therapists better understand SMD and how it impacts occupation.
Complex regional pain syndrome and sensory modulation disorder are clinically distinct entities that are often treated by different populations of occupational therapists. As a result, there has not been any literature describing or exploring any intersection of these disorders. There has not been any documentation of discussion regarding the intervention strategies that overlap and address similar underlying components of both disorders.
Both disorders are poorly understood, but hyperarousal and excessive sympathetic nervous system outflow are suspected as being significant contributors to both of these disorders. Sympathetic stress loading techniques are commonly used as intervention for both conditions.
Occupational therapy researchers are conducting studies regarding neurophysiologic parameters that would help to quantify sympathetic nervous system hyperarousal. Similar testing techniques have already been used in researching complex regional pain disorders.
Because of multiple points of commonality, assessment strategies useful for sensory modulation disorders may provide useful clinical information regarding complex regional pain syndrome. In turn, these points of commonality could provide a stronger basis of neurophysiologic rationale behind the explanation of sensory modulation disorders.
This paper describes an initial attempt at investigating the intersection of these two disorders. Researching the similarities between these two conditions provides useful clinical information that can lead to better understanding of the disorders and improved intervention strategies and patient outcomes.
Sample size and composition:
Five subjects were identified for participation in the study. The subjects were all over eighteen years of age. Subject criteria stated that they could be either male or female, but had to be English speaking and residents of the Counties of Erie or Niagara in New York State. All subjects had to have a current diagnosis or recent history of complex regional pain syndrome secondary to orthopedic injuries including fractures, ligament or tendon injuries, or peripheral nerve damage.
The principal investigator provided eligibility criteria to the lead therapist at the ABC Therapeutics facility in Lockport, NY. Based on the criteria, the lead therapist used purposive sampling to develop a subject eligibility list. Subjects were then given an invitation to participate in the study. After subjects expressed interest to participate in the study, all personal and confidential information was de-identified and presented to the principal investigator. Patient charts were never viewed by the principal investigator.
Purposive sampling was used with specific selection criteria as follows: all subjects had to have current or historical clinical signs of complex regional pain syndrome; they had to be over 18 years of age at the time of their initial injury, and they were drawn from the patient pool at a private occupational therapy practice in Lockport, New York. None of the subjects will be patients of the principal investigator. Maximum variation sampling was used regarding subject gender, underlying orthopedic condition, educational attainment, and job title.
Subjects who expressed an interest in participating were contacted for an appointment to discuss the study with the principal investigator and to sign the informed consent paperwork. During this appointment the principal investigator provided informed consent information to the subject to read. The principal investigator answered all questions relating to the study and the informed consent forms and followed the format as listed on the signature sheets. Once the informed consent process was completed, the subjects were invited to stay to complete the two assessments. Additional appointment times to accommodate the subject’s schedules were provided, as necessary.
Methods and Procedures
Following selection and informed consent processes, the principal investigator provided subjects with the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) (Brown & Dunn, 2002) to complete. The AASP is a standardized assessment used by occupational therapists to measure sensory processing abilities and to profile the effect of sensory processing on functional performance in daily life. Dunn states that there is a relationship between neurological sensory thresholds and observed behavior (1997). The AASP (Brown & Dunn, 2002) provides an assessment of this relationship based on self-report. This measure is the most widely used and widely accepted standard used by occupational therapists for assessing SMD in adults.
Following completion of the AASP, the principal investigator administered the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) to the subject. The COPM (Law, et. al., 1990) is an individualized, client-centered measure designed for use by occupational therapists. The COPM measures self-care, productivity and leisure outcomes. Clients rate themselves on performance and satisfaction with performance.
It is primarily designed to be used as a clinical outcome measure and is cited extensively in the occupational therapy literature. The COPM showed good evidence of concurrent criterion validity and sensitivity to change when used to measure performance after client participation in a pain management program (Carpenter, Baker, & Tyldesley, 2001).
The authors of the COPM identify that it can also be used as a measure of occupational performance in research (Law, et. al., 1990). Specifically, the authors suggest that the COPM is useful for studies aimed at understanding the determinants of occupational performance problems as well as for explanatory studies that try to show relationship between occupation and other variables. For purposes of this study, the COPM was administered once to obtain data on the subject’s perception regarding occupational performance difficulties. It was chosen for this study specifically because it elicited information regarding quality of life and satisfaction with current occupational participation (Liddle & McKenna, 2000).
Although purposive and maximum variation sampling strategies were used, the subject pool had some common characteristics. In summary, they were all within the range of 45-65 years of age. All of the subjects had a diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome secondary to an injury. Their job titles were significantly variable and although three of the five subjects had distal upper extremity fractures, not all of them were caused by work injuries. Only one subject had education beyond high school. Three women and two men agreed to participate in the study.
The following table outlines demographic characteristics of the subject pool.
Using descriptive methods, information obtained from the AASP was graphically tabulated and analyzed to report frequencies and distributions of scores. Information from the COPM was analyzed with identical methods to report frequencies and distributions of self-reported occupational performance difficulties. Information from the COPM provided additional narrative information that assisted in descriptive analysis.
The subjects were given the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile to complete. The AASP classifies responses into categories of Low Registration, Sensation Seeking, Sensory Sensitivity, and Sensation Avoiding. Scores are classified as being much less than most people, less than most people, similar to most people, more than most people, and much more than most people.
Low registration refers to a pattern of sensory processing that is characterized by high sensory thresholds and a passive self regulation strategy (Dunn, 1997). Three of the five subjects scored differently than the normative group. Two had a greater degree of low registration and one had a lower degree of low registration.
Sensation seeking refers to a pattern of sensory processing that is characterized by high sensory thresholds and an active self regulation strategy (Dunn, 1997). Two of the five subjects had lower sensation seeking scores than the normative group.
Sensory sensitivity refers to a pattern of sensory processing that is characterized by low sensory thresholds and a passive self regulation strategy (Dunn, 1997). Two of the five subjects scored differently than the normative group: one had a greater degree of sensory sensitivity and one had a lower degree.
Sensation Avoiding refers to a pattern of sensory processing that is characterized by low sensory thresholds and an active self regulation strategy (Dunn, 1997). One subject scored lower than the normative group and one scored much lower than the normative group. Another subject scored much higher than the normative group.
The following table summarizes score performance of the subject pool.
Finally, the subjects were given the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure to complete. Using the COPM scoring card the client was asked to rate the importance of each chosen activity on a scale of 1-10, (1 as not important at all and 10 as extremely important). After reviewing the ratings with the client, the top five highest scored, self- perceived problems were scored for performance and satisfaction. These were also rated on a scale of 1-10. Each score was then divided by 5 (the number of problems identified by the client).
The following table summarizes reported scores of the subject pool.
As indicated in the chart below, the most common problems highlighted by the subjects were inability to complete various aspects of dressing occupations (8 prioritized problems) and inability to work at all (5 prioritized problems). In the leisure category, two subjects specifically identified inability to participate in grandparenting occupations as a prioritized problem. The remaining prioritized problems scattered around individual tasks within the three occupational domains.
In this small sample there was evidence that all of the subjects had areas of atypical sensory processing as measured by the AASP. However, there was absolutely no consistency whatsoever in the pattern and distribution of scores on this test. The AASP measures sensory processing differences in a bidirectional manner – meaning that scores can either be higher or lower than the normative range and are considered atypical in either direction away from the mean. However, the nature of that atypicality is dependent on the directionality of difference of the scores.
As identified in the literature review there is some evidence of altered sensory thresholds leading to pain and hyperarousal in people who have CRPS. However, there was not a significant pattern of sensory sensitivity that was seen in the AASP test scores of the subjects. There are several factors that could explain why this relationship was not observed.
First, there may in fact be no relationship to CRPS hyperarousal and pre-existing sensory sensitivity as measured by the AASP. The literature provides strong face validity to the hypothesis that sensory sensitivity and the associated active sensory avoiding behaviors might be associated with the sensory processing of people who have CRPS. However, the patients in this study may have been at different stages with their CRPS and in part that could account for differences in their AASP responses. Very acute CRPS could potentially bias sensory sensitivity responses, where chronic CRPS may not.
Additionally, although the tactile hypersensitivity factors account for a degree of overall hypersensitivity scores, there are other sensory channels that are considered on the AASP. So simple tactile hypersensitivity is only a component of overall sensory sensitivity and may not be enough to trigger identification as in the sensory sensitivity quadrant on the AASP.
Second, the sample size may be too small to identify a reliable measure of sensory processing tendencies of the group. So although it is interesting that the scores of the subjects all were atypical, it is not possible to draw conclusions on this finding at this time.
It may be possible that people who have CRPS are more likely to have sensory processing disturbances that manifest atypically in directions of both hyper and hypo-arousal and responsivity. The AASP measures both behavioral responses and actual sensory perceptions. Depending on an individual’s passive or active coping strategy the nature of the difficulty may be more complex than a simple univariate model that is explained by sensitivity associated with heightened avoidance strategies. Additional research is warranted to elucidate the scoring patterns observed in this initial probe.
More directly, the subject’s prioritization and ranking of perceived occupational performance problems was clear. The subjects report significant problems with loss of ability to participate in preferred occupations, with self care being the greatest area of concern. Work and leisure concerns were also reported, but not at the same frequency. Not all disability or disease processes have a direct relationship to decreases in functional performance. In this case, whether or not there is any underlying relationship between sensory processing factors between CRPS and SMD, it is very clear that people who have these diagnoses experience significant occupational dysfunction. Self care skills and performance in daily activities are domains of concern for occupational therapists. The low COPM scores in perceived performance and satisfaction validates that people who have CRPS with SMD are good candidates for occupational therapy evaluation and intervention.
Complex regional pain syndrome and sensory modulation disorder are clinically distinct entities that are often treated by different populations of occupational therapists. As a result, there has not been any literature describing or exploring any intersection of these disorders. There has not been any documentation of discussion regarding the intervention strategies that overlap and address similar underlying components of both disorders.
Both disorders are poorly understood, but the literature indicates that hyperarousal and excessive sympathetic nervous system outflow are suspected as being significant contributors to both conditions. Sympathetic stress loading techniques are commonly used as intervention for both conditions. Occupational therapy researchers are conducting studies regarding neurophysiologic parameters that would help to quantify sympathetic nervous system hyperarousal. Similar testing techniques have already been used in researching complex regional pain disorders.
Because of these multiple points of commonality between the conditions, assessment strategies useful for sensory modulation disorders were used in this study to obtain additional clinical information regarding complex regional pain syndrome. Although there was no single pattern of sensory processing disorder for people who had CRPS, it was clear that they all had some degree of atypical sensory processing as measured by the AASP. Additionally, all of the subjects who had CRPS had significant occupational dysfunction as measured on the COPM.
The research that has been completed on CRPS provides useful information for occupational therapists to consider when investigating sensory modulation disorders. This literature review and exploratory study demonstrates that there is justification for continuing to study the possible relationship between disorders that share common sensory processing factors as they have a significant impact on people’s occupational function.
Apkarian, A.V., Thomas, S., Krauss, B.R. and Szeverenyi, N.M. (2001). Prefrontal hyperactivity in sympathetically mediated chronic pain. Neuroscience Letters, 311, 193-197.
Ayres, A.J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles: WPS.
Baron, R. & Wasner, G. (2001). Complex regional pain syndromes. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 5, 114-123.
Brown, C., Tolefson, N., W., Cromwell, R. & Filion, D. (2001). The adult sensory profile: Measuring patterns of sensory processing. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 75-82.
Brown, C.E. & Dunn, W. (2002). Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile User’s Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Carlson. L & Watson, H. K. (1988). Treatment of reflex sympathetic dystrophy using the stress loading program. Journal of Hand Therapy, 1, 149-154.
Carpenter, L. Baker, G.A. & Tyldesley, B. (2001). The use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an outcome of a pain management program. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy , 68(1), 16-22.
Chelimsky, T.C., Low, P.A., Naessens, J.M., Wilson, P.R., Amadio, P.C., O'Brien, P.C, (1995). Value of autonomic testing in reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 70, 1029-1040.
Drummond P.D., Finch, P.K., Skipworth, S., & Blockey, P. (2001). Pain increases during sympathetic arousal in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Neurology 5, 1296-1303.
Dunn, W. (1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their families: A conceptual model. Infants and Young Children, 9, 23-35.
Dunn, W. (1999). Sensory Profile User’s Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Gulevich, S.J., Conwell, T.D., Lane, J., Lockwood, B., Schwettmann, R.S., Rosenberg, N., et.al. (1997). Stress infrared telethermography is useful in the diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome, type I (formerly reflex sympathetic dystrophy), Clinical Journal of Pain, 13, 50-59.
Harden, R.N., Bruehl, S., Stanos, S., Brander, V., Chung, O.Y., Saltz, S. et.al. (2003). Prospective examination of pain-related and psychological predictors of CRPS-like phenomena following total knee arthroplasty: A preliminary study. Pain, 106, 393-400.
Janig, W. & Baron, R (2002). Complex regional pain syndrome is a disease of the central nervous system. Clinical Autonomic Research, 12, 150-164.
Janig, W. & Baron, R (2003). Complex regional pain syndrome: mystery explained?
The Lancet Neurology, 2, 687-97.
Juottonen, K., Gockel, M., Silen, T., Hurri, H., Hari, R., & Forss, N. (2002). Altered central sensorimotor processing in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 98, 315-23.
Kandel, E.R. & Jessell, T.M.(2001). Touch, in Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, J.H. & Jessell, T.M. (Eds.). Principles of Neural Science, 3rd ed. New York: Elsevier.
Kinnealey M.., Fuiek, M. (1999) The relationship between sensory defensiveness, anxiety, depression and perception of pain in adults. Occupational Therapy International. 6, 195-206.
Kinnealey, M. & Oliver, B. (2002). The Adult Sensory Questionnaire. Retrieved July 17, 2004 from http://www.temple.edu/OT/Neuro_Behavioral_Center2.htm
Law, M., Cooper, B., Strong, S., Stewart, D., Rigby, P., & Letts, L. (1996). The Person-Environment-Occupation Model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 9-23.
Law, M., Baptiste, S., McColl, M.A., Opzoomer, A., Polatajko, H. & Pollock, N. (1990). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2), 82-87.
Liddle, J & McKenna, K. (2000). Quality of Life: An overview of issues for use in occupational therapy outcome measurement. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 47, 77-85.
Low, P.A., Caskey, P.E., Tuck, R.R., Fealey, R.D., Dyck, P.J. (1983). Quantitative sudomotor axon reflex test in normal and neuropathic subjects. Annals of Neurology, 14, 573-580.
Lynch, M. (1992). Psychological aspects of reflex sympathetic dystrophy: a review of the adult and paediatric literature. Pain. 49, 337-347.
Maihofner C., Handwerker, H.O., Neundorfer, B., Birklein, F. (2003). Patterns of cortical reorganization in complex regional pain syndrome. Neurology, 61, 1707-15.
Maleki, J., LeBel, A.A., Bennett, G.J., & Schwartzman, R.J. (2000). Patterns of spread in complex regional pain syndrome, type I (reflex sympathetic dystrophy). Pain, 88, 259-66
McIntosh DN, Miller LJ, Shyu V, Hagerman RJ. (1999). Sensory-modulation disruption, electrodermal responses, and functional behaviors. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 41, 608-15.
Melzack, R. & Wall, P. (1965). Pain mechanisms: A new theory, Science, 150, 171-179.
Miller L.J., McIntosh, D.N., McGrath, J., Shyu, V., Lampe, M., Taylor, A.K., et.al. (1999). Electrodermal responses to sensory stimuli in individuals with fragile X syndrome: A preliminary report. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 83, 268-79.
Miller, L. J., Reisman, J. E., McIntosh, D. N., & Simon, J. (2001). An ecological model of sensory modulation: Performance of children with fragile X syndrome, autistic disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and sensory modulation dysfunction. In S. Smith-Roley, E. I. Blanche, & R. C. Schaaf (Eds.), Understanding the nature of sensory integration with diverse populations (pp. 57-88). San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders.
National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2003). Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (also called Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome) Fact Sheet. Retrieved May 14, 2004 from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/
National Pain Foundation (2003). How CRPS Happens. Retrieved June 3, 2004 from http://www.painconnection.org/cm/CMDisplayAllArticles.asp?ClassId=15&CategoryId=1
Parham, L.D. & Mailloux, Z. (2001). Sensory integration. In J.Case-Smith (Ed.), Occupational therapy for children (4th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
Pfeiffer, B. & Kinnealey, M. (2003) Treatment of sensory defensiveness in adults. Occupational Therapy International, 10, 175-184.
Phillips, M.E., Katz, J.A., & Harden, R.N. (2000). The use of nerve blocks in conjunction with occupational therapy for complex regional pain syndrome type I. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 54, 544-549.
Reisman, J.E., & Gross, A.Y. (1992) Psychophysiological measurement of treatment effects in an adult with sensory defensiveness. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 5248-5257.
Rho, R.H., Brewer, R.P., Lamer, T.J., Wilson, P.R. (2002). Complex regional pain syndrome. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 174-180.
Rommel, O., Malin, J., Zenz, M., & Jänig, W. (2001). Quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiological and psychological examination in patients with complex regional pain syndrome and hemisensory deficits. Pain, 93, 279-293.
Schaaf, R.C., Miller, L.J., Sewell, D., & O'Keefe, S. (2003). Children with disturbances in sensory processing: A pilot study examining the role of the parasympathetic nervous system. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 442-449.
Schiepers, C. (1997). Clinical value of dynamic bone and vascular scintigraphy in diagnosing reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the upper extremity. Hand Clinics, 13, 423-429.
Schwoebel, J., Friedman, R., Duda, N., Coslett, H.B. (2001). Pain and the body schema: evidence for peripheral effects on mental representations of movement. Brain, 124, 2098-104.
Stanton-Hicks, M., Janig, W., Hassenbusch, S., Haddox, J.D., Boas, R., Wilson, P. (1995). Reflex sympathetic dystrophy: Changing the concepts and taxonomy, Pain: 63, 127-133.
Van Houdenhove, B., & Vasquez, G. (1993). Is there a relationship between reflex sympathetic dystrophy and helplessness? General Hospital Psychiatry, 15, 325-329.
Wasner, G., Schattschneider, J., Binder, A., & Baron, R. (2003). Complex regional pain syndrome--diagnostic, mechanisms, CNS involvement and therapy. Spinal Cord. 41, 61-75.
Wilbarger, J.L. & Wilbarger, P.L. (2002). The Wilbarger approach to treating sensory defensiveness, In Bundy, A.C., Murray, E.A., & Lane, S. (Eds.). Sensory Integration: Theory and Practice, 2nd Ed., Philadelphia, PA.: F.A. Davis.
Many thanks to Dr. Carol Reed and Dr. Sandee Dunbar who both provided neverending encouragement, review, and editing for this project.
There is little that is worse in my life than moments of separation from my children. The bittersweet part of this is that the children know this too. I guess I am not so good at hiding it.
Friday, October 10, 2008
I picked the girls up and got home late on a Saturday night. She complained a little that her wrist was sore, but I thought she was just feigning attention (part of the whole coming home thing, I figured). I ignored her complaints.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
This offers a different view in response to your continuing competency column, OT's should be made aware of treatments that are offered to clients/patients, whether it is traditional or non-traditional, a long existing treatment or new one. This enables our OT profession and professionals to better educate the people they treat and interact with.
Instead of taking anyone's word that a particular treatment is 'mysticism' (as you put it) or the best thing since sliced bread, the OT who attends a 2-3 hour session can be introduced to the history and theory, what the treatment or program consists of, indications/contraindications, etc.
In response to Quantum Touch, it is based on the chi concept much like Tai Chi but focuses on therapeutic touch, a long standing principle used in OT. From the Quantum Touch website: “In principal the Quantum-Touch practitioner learns to focus and amplify life-force energy ("Chi" or "Prana") by combining various breathing and body awareness exercises” (I fail to see the problem with this). Additionally, “Over the past eight years, …have taught QT to well over 4000 people. Without exception, professional practitioners of the various modalities have told me that this work can be seamlessly combined with what they know, and in most cases it has transformed their practice. This list includes chiropractors, osteopaths, physical therapists, acupuncturists, cranial sacral therapists, chi gung instructors, and reiki masters, to name but a few”.
Notice the absence of OT, whether we buy into it or not is our own personal preference, however when talking to another health professional, it seems you would rather OT be clueless about what it is, who does it and what the theories behind it are. Tai chi has only become more evidence based recently and early practitioners were pooh-poohed!
Your comment "Undoubtedly, continuing education organizers and providers reap reasonable financial dividends through their offerings" couldn't be further from the truth, if fact one of the reasons this company was formed was to provide accessible, affordable, quality continuing education to our local health providers. The fees are low, food is often provided as well as current information offered by quality speakers who have vast experience in the content area. While Evidence Based Practice is on all of our minds, and ultimately the best to utilize with our patients, if we only used treatments for all of these years we would have missed out on the many treatments that OT’s have historically (and still) use.
Additionally, IACET is the gold standard of continuing education, AOTA CEUs have fewer standards and the standards they have are in line with IACET. IACET enables OT/PT/ST/Athletic trainers and others to learn in an interdisciplinary manner which is highly encouraged by the Institute of Medicine in “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century”.
I would also like to urge those that question a practice or program to at least attend an event and look for yourself, much like the therapists who have found this to be a valuable resource!
Thanks for having an open mind!
I still believe that Quantum Touch has absolutely no value and should never be accepted as continuing education for occupational therapists. In my opinion it has absolutely nothing to do with the occupational therapy scope of practice as defined by our state law and I believe you would be hard-pressed to find an ACOTE standard that demands the inclusion of this intervention into any curriculum.
If Quantum Touch was only about "breathing and body awareness exercises" than I might not object - but in fact the Quantum Touch website makes claims that this technique can cause remissions of breast and liver cancer, cure scoliosis and other orthopedic misalignments, reduce deformities from rheumatoid arthritis and eliminate panic attacks, reshape bunions and heal deformed or broken bones... the list goes on. It can also apparently be done through 'telephone healing' and even children can do it. It also prevents flowers from wilting and can cause people to smile broadly. All these claims are made on the website at http://www.quantumtouch.com/index.php?option=com_content&%20%20;view=article&id=3&Itemid=58. This does not constitute responsible occupational therapy practice in my opinion.
So actually I don't believe that professionals should be "clueless." People can go read the New York State law governing occupational therapy practice, they can read the ACOTE standards, and then they can read the outrageous claims on the Quantum Touch website. Then they can go read the evidence:
As you are undoubtedly aware, this is not my opinion alone. There are many studies that completely discredit energy healing and it is not accepted by the medical community at large. In fact, if I were to attempt to use a form of energy healing in my practice for a patient who had an acute hand injury I would not improve the patient's condition, the doctor would never refer to occupational therapy again, and I would open myself up to a significant lawsuit for professional malpractice. The premise that this is somehow an acceptable intervention and something that we should be educating occupational therapists on is almost beyond my comprehension.
Michele states that Quantum Touch is based on the concept of Therapeutic Touch. Perhaps the most famous evidence that we have to date that undoubtedly proves that this is a sham is from the article published in JAMA on the inspiration of the 11 year old's fourth grade science fair project - where people who were energy healers only identified an 'energy field' 44% of the time - less than by chance! So much for Therapeutic Touch.
Just because people seek out alternative energy healing interventions doesn't mean that it constitutes appropriate or ethical practice. In an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on this topic an author writes: "Given the extensive use of
Jonas W. (1998) Alternative medicine and the conventional practitioner. JAMA, 279, 708-709. Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S. (1998). A close look at Therapeutic Touch. JAMA, 279:1005-1010.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Collins statement as it relates to preschool services is excruciatingly correct - although I am not sure if his solution really solves the problem. The article states:
"Besides Medicaid — the local costs for which eat up all the $200 million in revenues raised by property taxes in Erie County— Collins cited as among the unfair mandates a program that provides special services for children younger than 5 who need help to get ready for going to school.
He said the county pays the costs of the program — $23 million a year — but has no authority in running a program administered by local school districts. When children turn 5 and schools have to then pick up the costs, Collins said, pupils are “miraculously cured” and no longer offered the services."
This is oh so true, but the preschool/UPK advocates will correctly point to numerous studies that demonstrate the benefit of providing this kind of programming and how it provides long term educational benefits.
But there is something more interesting to watch - see how politicians duck their heads and hope no one sees why all the preschoolers who had problems are suddenly declassified once the responsibility for payment slides back onto local school tax rolls.
I guess it is easier to spread the pain, point fingers, and have a broadly distributed and partially state subsidized tax pay for these programs. No one wants that pain when it starts to exclusively and specifically impact the local property tax rate.
In the end it boils down to a moral issue: do we want to provide these programs for children and do we think that we get enough benefit for the money spent? If we believe in the positive outcomes then the investment is worth the cost - no matter what politician's budget it lands in.
Or do we allow the politicians to tell us that it is not worth the cost - not based on any measured outcome but rather because they are afraid that the cost of the program on their budgets will jeopardize their chances of re-election?
And to think that people have the mistaken idea that these decisions on who gets how much service has anything to do with the welfare of children or the creation of a functional educational system!
Anyway, here is Jeff's response:
I have also been encouraged by another occupational therapist to check out this discussion.
We were certainly surprised by the speed with which the physical therapists were able to pass their mandatory continuing education bill. It was quite an accomplishment in a legislative session that passed very few bills that regulated the professions. I will be talking to the lobbyist and the leadership at NYPTA about how they got this done.
At the same time, it should also be noted that the PTs continuing education law is not like the NYSOTA's continuing competency bill. NYSOTA's proposal is much more consistent with the NBCOT continuing competency program and all the research that has been done over the last fifteen years on promoting professional competency. So in my own view, I'm concerned that a mandatory continuing education program will not be the best thing for the profession of physical therapy.
NYSOTA considers both the practice act amendments bill and the continuing competency bill a priority. We have asked legislators to combine the bills into one, and that request has been denied. We have been told that the practice act must be amended first so that the regulatory authority over the ota is straightened out first. Then the continuing competency bill will follow. We are certainly hoping that the continuing competency bill might move as quickly as the PT bill did, once the practice act amendment bill is passed.
Regarding splitting off the OTA section of the practice act amendments bill and passing that separately. NYSOTA has certainly considered this option since we consider the regulation of OTA practice an urgent public protection issue. However, at the same time we have another issue that may be considered by many to be just as urgent. We have learned over the last year that possibly hundreds of children in lower socio-economic school districts, face lengthy delays or receive no occupational therapy because of the prescription requirements in the practice act. We believe that the amendment allowing for direct access in non-medical conditions may address this issue. The idea that children are going without necessary OT services is very disturbing to me.
The biggest issue that we have had opposition to has been our addition in the definition of our practice of the concept that we address cognition. NYSOTA has fought hard for that cognition amendment and we have negotiated in good faith with our opposition, and we have made progress on the issue.
Finally, it is unfortunate but very common practice to combine less palatable, or less mobile legislation together with legislation that is easier to move. That is a reality in the legislative world. For example, the extension of the exemption process on the Medicare Part B Therapy caps was included in a bill with the physician fee schedule, a much more public and poular issue. The recent mental health parity legislation passed by the US Senate on Tuesday was included in a Tax bill! This is how legislation gets done. Our assessment is that many of the amendments in the OT bill would potentially languish for years if not attached to more urgent issues.
As far as I can recall I never saw the letter to NYSOTA regarding this issue, but, consider the silence broken. And always feel welcome to communicate directly with me at firstname.lastname@example.org
NYSOTA Legislative & Government Relations Coordinator
Thursday, September 18, 2008
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
There is a history of name changes in describing sensory integration problems. People have probably heard:
- SI disorder
- SID (sensory integration dysfunction)
- DSI (Disorder of sensory integration)
- SPD (Sensory processing disorder)
Have I used enough initialisms and acronyms in this entry yet?
Now we have a companion problem in that there are multiple meanings for the concept of a 'sensory profile.' I was googling some information on the Sensory Profile assessment and I came across these references:
Sensory profile of mandarin chilled juices and consumers' acceptability
Mexican Mennonite-style cheese: Sensory profile of young cheeses from Chihuahua Mexico
Development of a sensory profile for the specific denomination “Galician potato”
When machine tastes coffee: Instrumental approach to predict the sensory profile of espresso coffee
The poor sensory researchers just can't catch a break. How many times will the name of the disorder and now the tests used to measure the disorder be co-opted???
I assure you all - our name will never change and we will always be ABC Therapeutics!