LiteGait Forums Home
 Search       Members   Calendar   Help   Home 
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 

Question from Peter G. Levine
 Moderated by: shanna, nkarman  
 New Topic   Reply   Print 

Joined: Wed Aug 29th, 2007
Posts: 8
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2012 01:05 am
 Quote  Reply 
This may be a little late to reply, but  the immediate answer that pops into my mind is that it isn't only the patient outcome that matters, but the cost in man-power, wear and tear on the therapist and safety of all that makes it worthwhile.  If I can help a patient to get up and walking sooner, without hurting myself in the process, or requiring as many extra hands to accomplish it safely, it has been worthwhile and more cost-effective.


Joined: Sat Jul 15th, 2006
Location: New York USA
Posts: 310
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Jul 25th, 2011 09:32 pm
 Quote  Reply 
The Leaps trial had the highest expenditure of any stroke recovery and rehabilitation study ever funded by the NIH. There are many clinicians who read various media accounts and came to the conclusion that the LEAPS trail was a "negative" trial. That is, partial weight supported walking (LT) did not work. In fact LT did work, but not better than physical therapy at home.

For many in PT the question is, why mess with the equipment, extra set up time and extra therapist training needed if outcomes are similar to standard care?

I know therapists who are in a quandary because they encouraged their facility to purchase BWS systems and their facilities are now demanding justification for the purchase. What would you say to those therapists and those facilities?

 Current time is 02:43 pm

Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez