The terms subjective and objective often appear in health care records, and one commonly hears about “subjective symptoms” and “objective complaints”—yet the former is redundant and the latter an oxymoron. Objectively verifiable pathology may explain a patient's symptoms, but complaints themselves are never objective but rather, by definition, subjective. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, defines the terminology: Subjective information is more open to interpretation, but objective data are factual, reproducible, and often measurable or quantifiable. Objective findings generally have much higher inter-examiner reliability than subjective findings. Symptoms and most findings on physical (particularly neuromusculoskeletal) examination are subjective. Diagnostic study results and a minority of physical findings are objective. Some physical findings, such as strength and range of motion measurements, are both subjective and objective. Repeat testing, assessment of plausibility, and use of confirmatory physical findings can be used to validate or “objectify” subjective findings (eg, by determining if a weakness is corroborated by other neurologic or physical findings, imaging study results, and/or electrodiagnostic testing). The use of objective, or at least less subjective, findings in impairment rating should improve interrater reliability. Thus, evaluating physicians should not regard subjective complaints and findings, and they should lend greater weight to objective findings.
Accurate measurement of hip motion is important in initial diagnosis, assessing progression over time, evaluating treatment outcomes, and rating impairments of this joint. In the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, range-of-motion (ROM) measurements are still a factor because the physical examination and other adjustment tables are used to select the grade and final rating. Further, ROM deficits may be used to derive a stand-alone rating when other tables refer the rater to motion impairment or if no diagnosis-based section is applicable for impairment rating. Hip motions generally are measured using a large goniometer, although an electronic inclinometer also may be used. Examiners must conduct tests in accordance with measurement instructions in the AMA Guides. From the standpoint of impairment rating, hip extension, at least beyond neutral, is irrelevant; if a patient does not have a flexion contracture of at least 10°, there is no extension impairment. Examiners should compare both extremities; active or voluntary motion is performed by the active contraction of the governing muscles and should be evaluated first. During this and other measurements, patients may have a tendency to extend or guard, thus producing an erroneously inflated measurement. Examiners must ensure that such behaviors do not occur and should record only the correct measurement.
Multiple factors determine the likelihood, type, and severity of bodily injury following a motor vehicle collision and, in turn, influence the need for treatment, extent of disability, and likelihood of permanent impairment. Among the most important factors is the change in velocity due to an impact (Δv). Other factors include the individual's strength and elasticity, body position at the time of impact, awareness of the impending impact (ie, opportunity to brace, guard, or contract muscles before an impact), and effects of braking. Because Δv is the area under the acceleration vs time curve, it combines force and duration and is a useful way to quantify impact severity. The article includes a table showing the results of a literature review that concluded, “the consensus of human subject research conducted to date is that a single exposure to a rear-end impact with a Δv of 5 mph or less is unlikely to result in injury” in most healthy, restrained occupants. Because velocity incorporates direction as well as speed, a vehicular occupant is less likely to be injured in a rear impact than when struck from the side. Evaluators must consider multiple factors, including the occupant's pre-existing physical and psychosocial status, the mechanism and magnitude of the collision, and a variety of biomechanical variables. Recommendations based solely on patient history and physical findings (and, perhaps, imaging studies) may be ill-informed.
Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) arthritis is a common source of shoulder pain. Manifestations of the arthritis may include inferiorly projecting spurs that predispose an individual to impingement and rotator cuff tears and can result in permanent impairment due to shoulder weakness or motion loss. Rotator cuff tendinopathy generally is multifactorial, and tears usually result from a combination of intrinsic factors (loads transmitted, local blood supply, and age) and extrinsic factors (impingement, primarily). Surgery to eliminate impingement collectively is termed subacromial decompression. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment provides no impairment rating for cheilectomy about acromioclavicular or other joints, and, because removal of this liability is beneficial, it results in no (and perhaps even negative) impairment. An individual whose job involves repetitive shoulder elevation and who develops impingement probably has a legitimate workers’ compensation claim, even if predisposed by preexisting bony prominences; in this scenario, the proximate cause was repetitive shoulder elevation. A case example demonstrates that if an individual with preexisting osteoarthritis of the ACJ is injured and disabled at work, the rotator cuff tear, although preexisting, was worsened during employment and probably will be covered under the claim. In legal terms, findings of disability associated with ACJ injuries may differ depending on the jurisdiction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.