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  

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.