Losing the ability to put on a pair of shoes should not have raised so many questions. The task had become harder after surgery, along with buttons and other small movements that once required little thought. By the time occupational therapy began, the loss of function was no longer difficult to recognize. What remained uncertain was what was causing it and what could be done about it.
The first evaluation lasted 50 minutes. There was an assessment to complete, findings to record, and a checklist that moved the appointment from one task to the next. Weakness was documented. Spasticity was raised as a possibility. Yet the questions that had made the appointment necessary were still largely unanswered. What did the weakness explain? Where did spasticity fit, if it fit at all?
Those questions were not only about identifying the problem. They were about what came next. Which exercises might help restore or preserve function? Were there movements that should be avoided? Would another type of therapy be more appropriate? If some abilities did not return, what assistive technology could make dressing, putting on shoes, writing, and other tasks easier?
The therapists had their own purpose for the appointment. They needed to assess the basic function, document the findings, and complete an evaluation. The checklist gave the visit structure, and there was value in that. As the appointment moved forward, however, the structure began to define the encounter rather than simply guide it.
The hour was serving several purposes at once. The therapists were assessing and documenting. The experienced therapist was also teaching a student, who was learning how to conduct the evaluation and what to notice. At the same time, the person who was losing function wanted to engage, learn, and understand what the evaluation was showing. Instead of receiving information that helped explain the weakness and continuing loss of function, she heard responses such as, “I don’t know. I have never dealt with spasticity.” The answer did not move the evaluation forward or clarify what should happen next.
At times, several conversations seemed to be happening at once. The providers discussed what they were seeing, while the experienced therapist explained parts of the assessment to the student. Questions were asked to complete the evaluation, but there was much less discussion about how the findings related to the patient’s concerns, what they might explain, or what they could mean going forward.
The problem was not that the professionals knew things the patient did not. Their expertise was one reason for being there. The problem was that information moved mostly in one direction. The patient supplied the history, completed the tasks, and answered questions, while the providers gathered what they needed for the evaluation. The questions were not completely ignored. They received enough of a response for the assessment to continue, but not enough to help explain what was happening.
The purpose of an initial appointment is not to resolve every question. It should, however, leave the patient with a clearer understanding of what was found. It should also offer some direction about what those findings may mean and what questions remain. The initial appointment was driven by a 50-minute clock, the assessment that had to be completed, and the evaluation checklist. The evaluation moved from one test to the next, leaving little room to discuss how the findings fit together, what they might indicate, or which questions still needed answers.
The evaluation could still have been completed. There was room for more explanation of how the findings related to the functional changes that brought the patient to therapy. That discussion could have supported both the student’s learning and the patient’s understanding.
When a movement appeared different, it could have prompted a question about whether the change was new. There was also room to discuss what it might suggest. When spasticity was raised, the uncertainty around it could have been acknowledged and incorporated into the discussion of next steps. Instead, one provider said, “I don’t know. I have never dealt with spasticity.”
he provider’s acknowledgment that this was outside her area of expertise was helpful. It did not resolve whether spasticity was contributing to the loss of function, but it made clear that this question would likely need to be addressed by someone with more experience in that area.
There had already been other moments when questions naturally arose during the evaluation. The providers had not introduced themselves, and a student was participating before her role had been explained. At times, the clinical discussion took place around the patient rather than with her. Terms such as “anomaly” and “abnormal” were used to describe findings without much explanation. Without that context, it could be difficult to separate the clinical description from how the person herself was being perceived.
The evaluation continued, but the central questions remained. What was causing the loss of function? Was spasticity contributing to it? What should happen next? Concerns could be raised and individual moments clarified without resolving the larger purpose of the appointment. That is where advocacy becomes more difficult: the questions have been asked, but there is little indication that the evaluation will answer them.
There are moments when pushing is necessary because the decision being made cannot easily be corrected later. Consent has to be addressed before a procedure. Inaccurate information that could affect treatment, an accommodation, or another consequential decision may need to be corrected before that decision is made. In those situations, leaving the issue unresolved can affect the result.
Other questions can remain unresolved without being abandoned. The question about spasticity was one of them. The therapist’s lack of experience did not establish that spasticity was irrelevant. It indicated that another source of expertise might be needed. The evaluation still had value because it documented the loss of function, while the unanswered questions helped identify what another evaluation would need to address.
Persistence can take different forms. Sometimes it means asking another question. Other times, it means making a call, sending an email, or reaching out to someone else. Walking away from one exchange may look as though the issue has been dropped. In reality, the decision may be to pursue it through another provider or someone with the expertise to answer it. There is a difference between letting something go and recognizing when the same conversation is unlikely to provide the information being sought.
On the way home, it became clear that asking the same questions of the same people was unlikely to lead anywhere new. There had already been an effort to take part in the assessment, follow the clinical discussion, and keep the loss of function from becoming just another item on the checklist. The questions were raised, but the appointment did not allow much time to examine the
From my perspective, the appointment was meant to help explain why function was changing and what could help address those changes. The evaluation established a baseline, but important questions remained. It did not clarify how much of the change was related to weakness, whether spasticity was also contributing, whether another factor should be considered, or what might help preserve function and independence.
The decision to stop asking the same questions in that setting did not make them less important. It meant looking for someone with the experience to address what the first evaluation had left unresolved. That changed what advocacy looked like after the appointment. The next step was not to repeat the same conversation, but to find a provider who could help answer the questions that remained.
The more difficult question is how to balance the structure of the appointment with the patient’s need to understand. There are schedules to keep, documentation to complete, and sometimes a student to train. Those responsibilities are part of the work, but so is making sure the patient understands what is being assessed and why. Limited time can make it harder to address patient questions. When that happens, important questions can remain unanswered as other demands take priority.
The patient should not have to piece together the assessment on their own. They should not have to know which question to ask next, which specialist to find, or how long to keep asking. Information also needs to move in both directions. That includes what is known, what remains uncertain, and what still needs to be investigated.
Perhaps the question is whether all of those competing priorities can be met without allowing the patient’s need to understand to become the one thing that waits.
Discover more from Wiley's Walk
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.