# data[].attributes.body
Thanks for including me in this conversation. I am unfamiliar with padlet - so I have responded to the questions on the attached document.
Would be happy to speak with you further if you have any questions.
Best,
Jim

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: The document is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the ICF model and all systems.  The tool appears to be very user friendly.  Seems to be easily converted to an electronic form in or outside of an electronic health record.
Q2: Is the intended audience only children currently receiving services under IDEA?  It seems that it could be used in multiple practice settings for children that are or are not currently receiving services under IDEA?  The reason I ask is the education/services question comes from a school based perspective.  I wonder if you could add a question about community access under environment (currently it addresses home and school)?
If this were intended to be used for both children currently receiving and not currently receiving services, how would it be billed? Addtionally, is the intent for the check-up to be a screen or an evaluation?  If it's a screen I could see this taking 60 minutes for some children and then is that too long?  Any thoughts on a question that may be more activity based for older children in place of the final question about age appropriate motor development?
Q3: I have primarily content knowledge of the movement system screening with limited use in practice.  I appreciate its use in this document in an effort to follow current contemporary literature.  My concern with my or others use is that the movement system unfortunately has not been translated to the majority of practitioners and therefore I fear significant inconsistencies and potential misinterpretation.  I do think this provides an opportunity for additional use, translation to practice, but think that it would require training specific to this document for those who were going to use it.
Q4: I think that as educators (academic and clinical) it could provide an opportunity for educators to provide students with a organized view of a comprehensive screen.  I particularly appreciate the emphasis on the ICF model and see this as an oppportunity to emphasize this to students.  I also see it providing an avenue to the movement system evaluation.
I could see this being used by CIs and in a didactic setting.
Q5 I think a training session preferably asynchronously would be necessary.  Additionally a few varying cases that incorporated the template would add translatability to the tool.  Thank you for all the time and effort on this.  Please let me know if you would like to follow-up on any of my responses.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the document and the inclusiveness of the movement  system examination. I also think the simplicity allows people to add to it as needed; however, does not over complicate it.

Q2: No current questions.

Q3: I am part of the movement system task force and have worked closely with Patty McGee and Ellen Brennan on how we can apply the movement system to our pediatric patients. I feel as though the simplicity of this movement examination will increase it being user friendly, however, if we increased the specificity of what is being looked at we could have a more standardized movement examination.

Q4: I believe that this annual evaluation could be well utilized in hospital based outpatient facilities for a children with life long special needs, it will also help contribute to episodic care without the families feeling as though  "discharge" means that they are completely done with therapy.

Q5: It would be helpful to have resources to advocate to families and insurance companies about the benefits of an annual PT evaluation.

# data[].attributes.body
Here is the review of the annual checkup document:

Q1

- The document is very thorough and addresses the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems

Q2

- How would this document be utilized? Is this supposed to be used in a direct access context? Would this document be billed as an evaluation, if not how would it be billed or financially covered?

Q3

- I am not completely sure about this question in regards to my experience. I believe these movements are typically assessed when applicable and have been adapted in different testing and assessments to be more thoroughly explored. I like that a variety of key movements are included.

Q4

- I think this has good applicability for outpatient settings and is easier to be implemented if not in an outpatient hospital setting (those typically limit direct access). I do think it could be used to follow up with patients and for patients that have decreased plans of care or for maintenance.

Q5

- I currently work inpatient and would not be readily available to use an annual wellness check up, however I could educate families on its existence and benefits. I think this could be implemented into outpatient hospital settings even though direct access is not allowed since it could potentially be part of a maintenance plan of care.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Hilary,

Thank you for coming to the meeting last night to tell us about the new annual check up document! Overall, I think this is really great and definitely an upgrade from the original. It won’t let me type in the padlet thing so I am emailing you my thoughts (from EI SIG perspective and also DPT faculty perspective—we use the current version in our HPW course as well).

Question 1:

I like that it seems to be very easy, lots of check boxes. The original seemed more suggestive of things whereas with this one it has more prompting (while still flexible if that makes sense)

Q2: The final question is “age appropriate motor development.” Is that just supposed to be based on general observation and gut feeling? I feel like with younger ages this is an important detail and one of the main reasons children are referred.

I also noticed that there aren’t really any questions about other areas of development. I think it’s very common that children in EI have PT for a while and then more concerns appear, so it would be good if there was something to point therapists to asking questions about other areas of development (without making it longer J).

Q3: My experience with the movement screen is minimal at this point. I know someone asked last night if you had to do what was listed there and you all said no. Would it be possible to somehow indicate that or write the prompts more broadly? I think most EI therapists would look at prompts like “rise to sitting with feet dangling off mat/bed, then return to supine from dangling position” and think it’s not relevant for a baby. But if there was a way to make them more general or list a couple of options or something…rise from supine to sitting, then return to supine?

Q4: I’m iffy on how useful the document would be in EI. I could see EI therapists using this perhaps at annual assessments or as an adjunct to a specific PT evaluation, although it would also be one more thing to complete so that might be a barrier. A lot of the information overlaps with what the service coordinator is already collecting. As far as using it to identify kids who might possibly benefit from PT, most states already have screening initiatives to find children who may qualify, so it seems redundant in that aspect. It might be helpful for a PT who is seeing a child already to use it at evaluation or re-evaluation for their own purposes to help gather information and make recommendations or think more broadly about health promotion. I could see this being more beneficial as a child gets closer to 3 and is transition to Part B.

As an educator, I already use the old one in the HPW course here and I do think this one is better. I would incorporate it in once the new one is laid out. I also think training is a useful thing to help people better understand how to complete it.

I am also wondering if it could be a useful document to use for screenings in the community. I have tried to take my students to childcare centers or other places to offer screenings for kids, but I haven’t really found a good tool for them to use that isn’t just a questionnaire they don’t need expertise to administer or else a full evaluation that they aren’t there to do.

Q5: I think training for how to use it will be great. I think other trainings or meetings to talk about how people actually end up using it could be helpful down the line. Things to keep people talking about it so it doesn’t get lost. I think this could be helpful, especially in EI because there may be creative ways to utilize it that my rigid brain just can’t come up with right now. J

# data[].attributes.body
Q1:  the document is comprehensive, like the references/ embedded resources, could be easily turned into electronic form
Q2: no questions
Q3: no experience with the movement screen.  I would be unlikely to use it in this format
Q4: We do not have ability to perform annual screens on students who are not being evaluated as part of special education.  This could be a good way to collaborate with private therapists and to share with families when they are aging out of school services.  We could encourage them to seek annual PT check up related to function and equipment.
Q5:  A 1 page document explaining the benefits of annual PT check up and space to write in community based services would be helpful additional resource to share with families upon aging out of school services.

# data[].attributes.body
Pediatric Annual Checkup Draft Document (not to be shared)

# data[].attributes.body
What do you like about this document?

# data[].attributes.body
What questions do you have about this document?

# data[].attributes.body
What is your experience with the movement screen? Would you use it in this context?

# data[].attributes.body
How do you as leaders see your members using this framework?
(This could include a modified version of the document)

# data[].attributes.body
What resources do you need to implement this idea?