Application of the HOAC II: an episode of care for a patient with low back pain. (Case Report).

The Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II) (1) is an algorithm designed to aid clinicians in planning and carrying out the elements of patient/client management (1) for any type of patient. It is a step-by-step guide that can be used in total or in part to guide patient care. Part I of HOAC II (Figs, 1 and 2) was designed to address the 5 elements of patient/client management (examination, evaluation, diagnosis, prognosis, and intervention) described in the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice (1) and to facilitate the use of evidence in clinical decisions. Part 2 (Figs. 3 and 4) describes a method for monitoring a plan of care and altering the care when needed. A companion article (see perspective article by Rothstein et al in this issue) provides a complete description of the HOAC II, and the Appendix defines terms commonly used in the HOAC II.

[FIGURES 1-4 OMITTED]

The primary purpose of this case report is to illustrate how the HOAC II can be applied to patient management. The case report describes all elements of the management of a patient with low back pain (LBP) who was referred for physical therapy. A secondary purpose is to demonstrate how HOAC II can facilitate physical therapists' integration of disablement concepts in patient management. (2)

Case Description

Initial Data Collection

The patient was a 47-year-old woman with a diagnosis of LBP who a physician referred to one of the authors (DLR). She was employed by a large company and for the 8 years prior to the referral coordinated one of the company's departments. She said that the physical demands of the workplace were primarily desk work, which required several hours of uninterrupted sitting daily. She stated that if she slouched in her chair, her pain would begin or increase, so she sat in a rigid upright posture to avoid the pain. She also reported that the emotional demands of the workplace were high because many people in her department had recently been laid off. She also said she was "extremely stressed" at work, not only because of her LBP but also because she empathized with her recently laid-off colleagues. She reported that her LBP and the psychological distress adversely affected her productivity at work.

When asked what other activities were affected by her LBP, she said she was unable to get in and out of her car or to put on her stockings in the morning without pain. She also reported that pain occasionally awakened her at night when she rolled over in bed and that any activity requiring forward bending produced pain. When asked to identify activities that required her to bend forward, she stated that she was unable to do yard work, ride her bicycle, or use the exercise machines at the local fitness center because of LBP.

She said her pain began approximately 3 months prior to the examination. She was unable to attribute the onset of the pain to any incident or activity. She did report, however, that she moved to a new home 2 days prior to the onset of pain and lifted many items during the move.

When asked whether she had any serious medical problems, she said she was healthy except for her LBP. The referring physician took radiographs of her lumbar spine and reported that they were normal. She said that this was her first episode of LBP and that the pain was intermittent, with the intensity and frequency unchanged over the 2 months prior to the referral.

Reported Functional Limitations and Disabilities

The Patient-Identified Problems (PIPs) List In the HOAC II, the Pips are problems reported by the patient and are almost always descriptions of functional limitations and disabilities. The patient described several problems during discussion of her medical history. We classified these problems, using the system described by Nagi, (2) as functional limitations or disabilities. (3) We believed that her inability to roll over in bed and her inability to sit in a slouched position or to forward bend without pain were functional limitations. A direct link appeared to exist between the patient's functional limitations and the disabilities she reported. We considered her inability to put on stockings and get in and out of a car without pain as disabilities. The disabilities also included her diminished level of performance at work, the intermittent awakening, and her limitations in recreational activities. She identified 3 recreational activities that were affected by her LBP (yard work, bicycling, and exercise).

To quantify the impact of the functional limitations and disabilities on the patient's health, she completed 2 instruments during the initial data collection: the acute version of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (4) and the Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ). (5) We used 2 instruments because the SF-36 is a multidimensional generic measure designed to assess both physical and mental health status, whereas the RMQ is used primarily to measure physical disability and was designed for patients with LBP. The measurement properties of both instruments, in our opinion, are acceptable for routine clinical use. (6,7) Stratford et al (6) found that a change of 5 points on the RMQ was necessary to conclude that a real change in a patient's disability occurred. The changes necessary to infer that there is a real change in health status for SF-36 scores (8) are larger than those necessary for the RMQ (see the 2 standard error of measurement [2SEM] scores in Tab. 1), but, in our experience, the measures are still meaningful if interpreted correctly.

The patient's initial SF-36 scores are reported in Table 1. Because the SF-36 is a norm-referenced test, the normative values for each subscale are provided in Table 1. The table indicates the mean and 25th percentile scores for each of the dimensions (variables) measured in a group of women aged 45 to 54 years from the general US population. (8) The 2SEM scores also are reported for the sample. We used the normative mean and 25th percentile scores to judge the extent of the patient's disability, and we used the 2SEM scores to assess the meaningfulness of changes in disability scores following the intervention. From the SF-36 scores, we concluded that the patient's health status was diminished in the areas of Physical Health and Bodily Pain. We expected this because most of her PIPs involved the performance of physical activities. Her Vitality and Mental Health scores also were lower than published norms, and we hypothesized that her psychological distress at work likely led to these low scores.

The patient had a score of 8 on the RMQ during her initial visit. For patients with chronic LBP, average scores on the RMQ range from approximately 12 to 15. (9-11) Our patient scored lower (less disability) than average for patients with chronic LBP, which suggested to us that her disability was somewhat mild compared with that of most people with chronic LBP.

The Examination Strategy and the Examination

The HOAC II requires the therapist to develop a strategy for the examination that is based on initial hypotheses developed from the medical history and other data obtained prior to the examination. We tailored the examination to identify and quantify impairments that we believed (hypothesized) could help to explain why the patient had her problems. Based on the patient's PIPs, it was apparent to us that the functional limitations and disabilities were primarily associated with a flexed lumbar spine. Because she reported she had to sit rigidly upright at work, we suspected limitations and pain would be found during forward bending and accessory motion testing of the lumbar spine. Because she said the pain was intermittent and only in the midline area of the lower lumbar spine, we designed the examination to focus on the soft tissues of the lumbar spine. We did not examine for likely causes of paresthesias or muscle weakness (eg, nerve roots) because the patient did not report symptoms consistent with nerve injury.

Because the patient expressed the desire to return to fairly rigorous recreational activities, we believed that it also was important to measure the lumbar spine motions of side bending and backward bending. Because we believe shortening of the hamstring and hip flexor muscles can affect lumbar spine posture via their attachment to the pelvis, we assessed, indirectly, the length of these muscles by use of the straight leg raise and the Thomas test. Indirect assessment is important, we believe, because there is no way to directly assess muscle length in a clinical examination.

Because the pain was intermittent, localized to the area of the midline of the lumbar spine and related primarily to trunk flexion movements, we believed the likelihood of serious disease or herniated disk was remote. (12) Tests of neurological status such as sensation and reflex testing, therefore, were not conducted.

The patient said that while she was standing just prior to the examination, she had no LBP. We used the methods described by Waddell et al (13) to quantify the amount of motion present with forward, backward, and side bending. Waddell et al reported intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for these measures that were on the order of .90 or higher, indicating to us that the data obtained with these measures were highly reliable. We did not estimate the reliability of our measurements. All motions began with the patient standing upright. (13) We used an electronic inclinometer to measure all motions. * For the forward- and backward-bending measurements, the inclinometer was positioned on the skin overlying the T12-L1 interspinous space. For the side-bending measurements, the inclinometer was positioned in the frontal plane and on the skin overlying the spinous processes from T10 to T12. Prior to our taking the measurements, the patient did 2 warm-up motions by moving in each direction, followed by a third set of warm-up motions of forward and backward bending. (13)

While the measurements were being taken, the patient was asked to rate the intensity of her pain using a 0 to 10 verbal pain rating scale, with 0 representing "no pain" and 10 representing "the worst pain imaginable." She reported that when she was forward bending, her pain was level 4, with the pain in the midline region of the lower lumbar spine (pain in the area of the lower lumbar spinous processes). She said the pain occurred at the end of the active range of motion (AROM) and disappeared when she returned to the upright position. She had 62 degrees of forward bending. Waddell et al (13) reported the values for AROM measurements of the spine for 70 subjects without LBP between the ages of 20 and 55 years of age using the same methods we used. The mean forward-bending AROM was 100 degrees (SD=14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=96.2-102.8), which indicated to us that our patient had limited forward-bending AROM.

The patient had 10 degrees of backward bending, and she reported a pain level of 2 at the end of the available AROM. Based on data reported by Waddell et al, (13) subjects without LBP had a mean of 26.5 degrees (SD=9, 95% CI=24.4-28.6) of backward bending. These data suggest the patient's active backward bending also was limited. The limitations in forward and backward bending are impairments, and we believed they were related to the patient's problems because her LBP occurred at or near the end of AROM for both motions.

Side bending to the right was 26 degrees, and side bending to the left was 24 degrees. She reported having no pain during the 2 side-bending motions. Waddell et al (13) reported a mean of 29 degrees (SD=6.5, 95% CI=27.9-31.0) for side bending in people without LBP, which suggested to us the patient's side bending was not limited. The measurements obtained during the AROM assessment are reported in Table 2.

The patient then positioned herself prone, and posterior-anterior (P-A) accessory motion at each of the spinous processes of the lumbar spine was assessed using the P-A central pressure test described by Maitland. (14) Prior to testing, the patient reported no pain. When force was applied to each lumbar spinous process in an anterior direction, the end-feel was judged by the examiner to be firm, and it was felt almost immediately upon application of the force. End-feels have been defined in the literature in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this case report, a firm end-feel is defined as a rapid increase in resistance. (15) The motion during the P-A accessory motion test done at each vertebral level of the lumbar spine was judged by the examiner (DLR) to be hypomobile. Based on the examiner's experience, a greater amount of intervertebral movement than what was found in the patient is typically perceived prior to the perception of a firm end-feel at the end-range of motion. The patient reported having pain along the midline of her lower lumbar spine when the P-A accessory motion tests were conducted in the area of the L3, L4, and L5 spinous processes. She rated this pain between 2 and 4 on the 0 to 10 scale. She said the pain ceased after the pressure was released. She reported no pain during P-A accessory motion tests of the L1 and L2 spinous processes. Data suggest that reliability for pain measurements obtained during P-A accessory motion testing of the lumbar spine is what we would consider acceptable (ICC=.67-.72), whereas other data suggest measurements of the amount of motion are not reliable (ICC=.03-.37). (16,17)

The examiner palpated the lumbar paravertebral soft tissues to determine whether pain could be elicited in tissues lateral to the midline. Because the P-A pressures caused pain, it appeared to us that inflammatory processes could have been affecting soft tissues along the midline at the L3 to L5 levels (ie, the areas over and near the spinous processes). To palpate, the examiner used the tip of his thumb to apply firm pressure approximately 2 cm and then 4 cm to the left and right of the lumbar spinous processes and to the area of the dorsal surface of the sacrum. No pain was elicited, which suggested to us that any inflammatory processes that might be present were most likely localized to the midline region of the lower lumbar spine.

We used several other procedures in an effort to determine whether any other impairments may have contributed to the patient's functional limitations and disabilities. Because the patient spent most of her working day sitting, we suspected her hamstring muscles were shortened. Prior to assessing hamstring muscle length, the hip joints were assessed so that we could be confident that hip joint structures were not limiting the patient's hip flexion range of motion (ROM). The Patrick test was not painful bilaterally. (18) Hip flexion passive range of motion (PROM) with the knees flexed was measured with the patient positioned supine. According to the observations of the examiner (DLR), hip flexion appeared to be approximately 140 degrees on both sides, and we judged this to be normal bilaterally. No pain was reported during hip flexion PROM testing. The Thomas test was negative bilaterally. (18) We found no data to support the reliability for the hip measures, and our use of these measurements was based on our opinions and customary practice, not on evidence.

A passive straight leg raise (SLR) was done bilaterally to indirectly assess the length of the hamstring muscles. (13) The inclinometer was positioned on the skin overlying the tibial spine, and the patient was instructed to relax and to inform the examiner if pain or a stretching sensation was perceived during the test. The patient had a straight leg raise of 68 degrees on the right side and 66 degrees on the left side when a stretching sensation was perceived in the area of the hamstring muscles. Waddell et al (13) reported reliability coefficients (ICC) on the order of .90 for SLR measures. We judged the patient's SLR to be mildly limited based on data published by Waddell et al (13) indicating that for subjects without LBP, the mean SLR was 77 degrees (SD=10, 95% CI--74.4-79.4). The patient reported no LBP during the SLR tests.

The Non-Patient Identified Problems (NPIPs) List

The NPIPs are those problems identified most commonly by the therapist and most typically are risk factors that the therapist believes may increase the patient's risk of recurrence or continuing disability. This patient had 3 problems that appeared to increase her risk for continued or recurrent LBP. First, her risk for future LBP appeared to be high because she routinely sat at her desk for many hours. This prolonged amount of sitting, in our view, can predispose her to hamstring muscle shortening and limitations in lumbar spine ROM. Second, we reasoned that her psychological distress at work increased her risk for future LBP. (19) Third, her limited bilateral SLR and limited forward and backward bending also appeared to increase her risk for LBP because, theoretically, limitations in these motions predispose tissues to lumbar spine to excessive forces.

The Hypotheses

In the HOAC II, hypotheses are most commonly the therapist's diagnosis of the relevant impairments that are thought to be causing the problems. Hypotheses, at times, also may identify pathologies or functional limitations. In our opinion, the patient in this case report was unable to achieve her goals because of localized chronic inflammatory processes in the area of the lower 3 vertebrae of the lumbar spine. We also hypothesized that this was a chronic inflammation that appeared to have been precipitated by several impairments. The limited lumbar sagittal-plane motion and lumbar accessory motion appeared to be long-standing and may have predisposed the patient to developing inflammation in the area of the lumbar spine. Because most of the patient's complaints were associated with a flexed lumbar spine, the painful and limited forward bending appeared to be the most important of the 3 impairments associated with movement of the lumbar spine.

Rationale for NPIPs

The HOAC II requires the therapist to develop theoretical arguments or provide evidence to justify why NPIPs warrant intervention. Because our patient's pain began insidiously, we believed it was important to attempt to identify any other risk factors that may have predisposed her to developing her problem. Because her job required sitting for long periods of time, she may have been predisposed to developing lumbar spine ROM limitations. That is, her spinal ROM and hamstring muscle length impairments may have preceded the onset of her pain and subsequent disability. Work by Kelsey (20) and Magora (21) suggests that prolonged sitting increases the risk for LBP in people with occupations similar to our patient's occupation. We, therefore, considered the prolonged sitting at work to be a risk factor. We also viewed the stress the patient was experiencing--which was a result of many of her fellow employees' job losses--as a risk factor for continued or future LBP. Data exist to suggest that psychological distress increases the risk for long-term LBP. (19)

We also considered the patient's limited SLR bilaterally to be a risk factor for LBP. The hamstring muscles, when taut, theoretically are in a position to posteriorly tilt the pelvis and to secondarily flex the lumbar spine, a motion that increased the patient's LBP. No direct evidence indicates that shortened hamstring muscles increase a person's risk for LBP, but because it is a commonly held belief, we considered it in our patient management. We thought that this was an especially easy decision because, in our opinion, addressing this impairment is usually not difficult and has little negative consequence.

Merged and Refined Problem List

In the HOAC II, both the PIPs and the NPIPs are reviewed and refined so that a master list of problems can be identified. The refined problem list read as follows. The patient was unable to: (1) roll over in bed without pain, (2) sit in a slouched position without pain, (3) forward bend without pain, (4) sleep through the night without awakening due to pain, (5) be as productive as usual at work, (6) don stockings in the morning, (7) get in and out of a car without pain, and (8) do yard work, bicycle, or exercise in the fitness center without LBP. We considered the prolonged sitting at work and the work-related psychological stress and shortened hamstring muscles to be risk factors for continued LBP. The psychological stress NPIP was kept on the refined problem list even though we believed, based on clinical experience with similar types of patients, that she would be able to appropriately manage her stress. We would consider referring her for psychological counseling at some point in her care if it appeared the stress was not resolving and was continuing to contribute to her LBP or to make future episodes of LBP likely. The limited bilateral SLR was an impairment that we viewed as a risk factor for future LBP.

The Goals

Goals are measurable target levels of function that the patient will achieve in a set period of time. If goals are met, then an episode of care can be considered worthwhile, and most likely the intervention was useful and based on a sound hypothesis. The goals established with this patient were to roll over in bed and to sleep through the night without pain awakening her, to forward bend and slouch while sitting without pain, and to achieve a pre-LBP level of performance at work. In addition, she hoped to be able to get in and out of her car without pain and don her stockings in the morning without pain. She also had a goal of returning to her recreational activities.

When establishing a temporal element for the goals (ie, the time it would take to achieve the goals), the goals were assessed to establish a hierarchy of difficulty. Goals that required demanding activities were given a longer time to achieve than those dependent on easier tasks. Because we could not find data in the literature that could be used to predict when goals might be achieved, our temporal targets were based on our experience. This is an example of how we used our judgments when evidence was not available. By use of the HOAC II, we were able engage in evidence-based practice and to differentiate the types of evidence we used.

We expected that the patient would be able to roll over in bed and sleep through the night within 2 weeks following the start of the intervention). We expected that she would be able to sit without pain and forward bend without pain in 3 weeks. She was expected to get in and out of her car and to don her stockings in the morning without LBP after 4 weeks of the intervention, and we expected her to be able to do yard work, bicycle, and exercise without LBP in 8 weeks. These temporal elements were based on our experience and on our assumption that her ROM limitations were long-standing and that it would take more time to regain the pain-free ROM required for vigorous activities than for less-demanding activities.

The Testing Criteria

Testing criteria are used in HOAC II to test the correctness of the hypotheses. Testing criteria are target levels of performance, typically at the level of impairments, that, if obtained, should result in goal achievement if the hypothesis is correct. The testing criteria were that the patient needed to attain 110 degrees of forward bending without pain and that she needed to attain 25 degrees of backward bending without pain. Based on the patient's goals of returning to relatively vigorous recreational activities, we believed that this amount of sagittal-plane motion was necessary to minimize potentially injurious forces to the lower lumbar spine area. The forward- and backward-bending values that served as the basis for our testing criteria also were equal to or slightly greater than the mean values for subjects without LBP reported by Waddell et al. (13)

For the accessory motion tests of the lumbar spine, our testing criteria were that the motion had to be judged as "normal" and that the patient would not report any pain during the tests. These criteria were established because the limited accessory motion appeared to be an important factor in the development of this patient's problems. We believed that the accessory motions had to be painless because this, in our opinion, would indicate the absence of a localized inflammatory process. Reliability of measurements of motion during accessory motion tests is highly questionable. (16,17) Despite the problems with reliability, the absence of any alternative methods of measuring motion under these conditions led us to create a testing criteria based on the accessory motion testing. This patient's accessory motion limitations appeared to be severe and, in our view, warranted attention. We kept in mind in clinical decision making, however, that this measurement was likely to have considerable error associated with it.

The measures that served as the remaining testing criteria (no pain with accessory motion tests, and pain-free forward and backward bending) have been shown to have what we would consider acceptable amounts of measurement error, (13,16,17) and we therefore considered them to be the most crucial criteria related to accessory motion and forward bending to test the hypothesis.

The Predictive Criteria

Predictive criteria are target levels of performance related to anticipated problems that indicate to the therapist that the patient's risk for recurrence has reduced to an acceptable level (eg, acceptable to the therapist, patient, and other members of the health care team). Predictive criteria are determined when treatment begins. True testing of hypotheses related to risk for recurrence cannot be done, because the problem may never actually recur.

To eliminate the risk factor related to prolonged sitting, the patient had to report that she sat for no longer than 1 hour before she took time out to stand and stretch or take a brief walk. To minimize the effect of the psychological stress risk factor, she had to report that her stress level at work approximated her typical stress level prior to her LBP. Although this may appear to be an overly simplistic approach to this factor, we made the determination based on our belief that the problems causing stress were transient and that, if she was unable to experience a reduction in stress, a consultation with a mental health professional would be warranted. A benefit of the HOAC II is illustrated by the manner in which we dealt with this risk factor; that is, we believed it would essentially resolve itself, but, through use of the predictive criteria, we stayed aware of the problem and could determine whether a referral to a mental health professional might be beneficial.

For the SLR risk factor, she had to achieve 80 degrees for a SLR before perceiving a stretching sensation in the area of the hamstring muscles. This risk factor, unlike the psychological factor, can be amenable to direct physical therapy intervention. Figure 5 illustrates how several of the steps in Part 1 of the HOAC II interface with the patient data and with terms used to describe the disablement process.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Planned Reassessments of Testing and Predictive Criteria

In the HOAC II, re-evaluations should be done when changes in the relevant impairments, functional limitations, or disabilities are expected to occur given the patient's condition. The patient was seen once every week because we hypothesized the impairments related to lumbar ROM and hamstring muscle length had been present for a long period of time. A relatively longer period of time between treatments theoretically allowed us more time to make gains in ROM than if treatments were more frequent. Weekly treatments also appeared to be a more efficient way to plan the limited number of treatments authorized by the patient's insurance company.

To assess whether the patient was progressing toward her goals, her ROM and straight leg raise were measured during each visit. Her functional limitations and disabilities were also assessed on each visit. Her self-reported functional status, as measured by the SF-36 and the Roland Morris Questionnaire, was measured at the time she began treatment and again at the time she was discharged from our care.

The Intervention

Intervention Strategy and Tactics Intervention strategies are the overall plans for the intervention, and tactics are the specific interventions included in the plan of care. The intervention strategy/ for this patient consisted of frequent bouts of exercise designed to increase lumbar spine motion and hip ROM (by presumably increasing hamstring muscle length). The frequent bouts of exercise also required the patient to get out of her chair every hour at work. Because we hypothesized that her prolonged sitting contributed to her reduced lumbar spine ROM and hip ROM impairments, it was important to avoid prolonged sitting at work.

She was seen in the clinic a total of 10 times during a 3-month period. The intervention tactics were as follows. Each treatment session consisted of 3 to 5 sets of P-A pressures to the spinous processes of L3-L5. (14) Each set consisted of a 30-second application of force at each level while the patient was positioned prone. The force was applied gradually until the patient reported pain, and then the force was maintained at the end-range. Usually the patient reported the intensity of pain during this procedure to be a 1 or 2 level out of 10. Following each set, the patient did 10 repetitions of the lumbar prone press-up (prone-lying push-up with the abdomen resting on the exercise surface) and a set of 10 repetitions of the bilateral knee to chest exercise while positioned supine, both exercises as described by McKenzie. (22) The patient was told she would feel a stretching sensation at the end-range of each motion and to hold the position for a few seconds.

We progressed the intervention (we used greater amounts of force over subsequent treatment sessions) so that the P-A pressures elicited mild pain. Because the patient had lumbar spine impairments, which we believed to be related to shortened tissue, the forces applied during treatment had to be, in our view, sufficient to stretch these shortened tissues. Loading the shortened tissues often elicited pain until, by the eighth treatment session, she had no pain during the P-A pressures. In addition, the therapist applied pressure to the lower lumbar spine during the prone-lying press-up exercise beginning the fifth visit because the patient no longer perceived a stretching sensation while performing a press-up on her own. Overpressure to the lumbar spine was applied by placing the therapist's palms over the patient's lower lumbar spine and applying a downward force while the patient performed her prone-lying press-up exercise. The patient was taught a home exercise program, which was designed to increase forward bending, backward bending, and hamstring muscle length. The home program consisted of a set of 10 repetitions of the bilateral knee-to-chest exercise while positioned supine and 10 repetitions of the prone-lying press-up exercise. The patient was taught to hold each repetition at the end-range for 2 to 3 seconds and to apply force until a stretching sensation was perceived in the midline of the lumbar spine. The patient was also shown how to do hamstring stretching exercises. While standing, the patient placed one foot on her desk with her raised knee straight and gently leaned forward until a stretching sensation was perceived in the area of the stretched' hamstring muscles. The position was to be held for 1 minute for each lower extremity. To avoid pain in her low back during the hamstring muscle stretches, she was told to avoid lumbar spine flexion. Two sets were to be done for each lower extremity. She was also told to do the 3 exercises every hour throughout the day at work and while at home during every other waking hour. Based on our clinical experience, this duration and frequency are tolerated well and frequently produce the desired changes.

The patient was told that during the breaks from sitting at work, she should flex, extend, and side bend the trunk while standing and that she should do these movements 2 or 3 times and then walk around the office for approximately I minute. She was asked to keep a log of her daily exercise. Because she had a private office at work she was able to exercise in her office and, based on a review of her log, she adhered to her exercise program. For the psychological stress, the patient was encouraged to discuss her concerns with friends, colleagues, and her physician. She reported she had not discussed the stress she was feeling and did not want to "burden" others with her problems. By the fifth week of treatment, she reported that she had many discussions with friends about her work-related stress and that she felt more "in control" at work.

The Reassessment and Outcome

The reassessment, as described in Part 2 of the HOAC II, is a conceptual guide for decision making related to the patient's responses to the intervention. Our patient was discharged from physical therapy after 10 visits (3 months after the first visit). The patient reported that she had achieved all of her goals except she still had some intermittent mild pain when putting on stockings in the morning and when rolling in bed. She rated the intensity of this pain as I on the 0 to 10 verbal pain rating scale. She also said that the pain lasted only a few seconds. She stated the pain occurred approximately once every 4 mornings. She appeared to be ready to complete the episode of physical therapy care.

We were surprised to find that the 2 PIPs that persisted were the PIPs that were hypothesized to resolve the quickest. Rolling in bed and donning stockings in the morning are 2 activities that are related to being in a recumbent position for several hours. We suspected that the stiffness of the patient's lumbar spine increased after the patient lay down for a night's sleep and that this increased stiffness resulted in some mild pain when rolling in bed or donning stockings. Before the patient was discharged from physical therapy, we instructed her to do 1 set of 10 repetitions each of the prone press-up and the supine knees to chest exercise. She was to do these exercises upon awakening before getting out of bed. The exercises were designed to decrease the stiffness of the spine associated with a night's sleep.

Her impairment measurements at discharge are listed in Table 2. Her range of backward bending achieved the pre-established criteria, and her forward bending was only 2 degrees less than the criteria. Her straight-leg-raise measurements met the testing criteria for both lower extremities. She no longer reported pain during the accessory motion tests of the lower lumbar spine. We judged her accessory motion to continue to be hypomobile at the time of discharge.

This patient was discharged from physical therapy even though she had not achieved all of her goals or met all the testing criteria. We determined that she performed all of her exercises in a manner that was appropriate. Therefore, she implemented the treatment strategy, but problems persisted. We concluded, based on our opinions, that the hypotheses and resultant tactics were not the cause of a less than ideal patient outcome.

We believed that by continuing her exercise program, the patient would eventually have no pain in the morning. In terms of the HOAC II, we had erred in predicting how long it would take for the patient to respond to the intervention and to achieve her goals. The patient was satisfied with her outcome and agreed that discharge from physical therapy was appropriate but that she could continue to improve by doing the exercises in the morning.

We judged the patient to have limited lumbar spine accessory motion, but because of her improved status and the poor reliability of data for the lumbar spine accessory motion tests, the apparently limited accessory motion did not appear to us to warrant further intervention. With the exception of the accessory motion tests, the hypothesis that guided this patient's intervention appeared to be credible. Improvements in disability appeared to follow improvements in the patient's impairments, providing support for our hypothesis. For the anticipated problems, the patient reported she believed her psychological stress was "back to normal." She also reported that she had developed a routine of getting out of her chair hourly and was comfortable with this routine. She demonstrated an understanding of the importance of continuing her exercise program at home. Based on the predictive criteria, she appeared to have minimized or eliminated what we considered risk factors for recurrence of her LBP.

The SF-36 scores listed in Table I provide some insights into this patient's apparent recovery. The admission scores indicated that our patient scored below the 25th percentile in the Physical Function, Bodily Pain, Vitality, and Mental Health categories. These categories include activities that correspond to the types of activities reported by our patient in her problem statement. At the time of discharge, our patient showed changes greater than 2SEM in the Physical Function, Bodily Pain, Vitality, and Mental Health scores. Based on the 2SEM values, the changes that occurred between admission and discharge appear to represent real changes in health status following physical therapy care. Based on the normative data, the questionnaire results suggest our patient's perceived functional level at the time of discharge approximated the health status of subjects in her age range from the general US population.

The patient's RMQ scores changed from 8 at the time of admission to 3 at discharge. At the time of discharge, the items from the RMQ that she identified as applying to her related to having trouble with rolling in bed and putting on stockings. The change in RMQ scores also appeared to represent a decrease in disability. Data reported by Stratford and colleagues (6) suggest that changes on the order of 5 RMQ points are necessary to infer that a real change in disability has occurred. For patients with relatively mild levels of disability, such as the patient in this report, changes of 3 to 4 RMQ points probably represent important improvements in disability. (23,24) We believe the data from the disability measures indicate that the improvement in the patient's disability was important and provide further evidence that the hypothesis was correct. The patient's disability status improved, as did most of her impairments.

Conclusion

This case report demonstrates the clinical application of HOAC II and shows how disablement terms can be integrated into patient management in a way that we believe enhances practice. The case is illustrative in that it demonstrates how all elements of HOAC II can be addressed for what we consider relatively common types of patient problems. We believe that by applying the HOAC II on an individual patient basis, therapists will be ideally positioned to apply evidence to patient care and to defend their interventions to colleagues and to third-party payers.

Appendix.

Terms Used in the Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II)

Anticipated Problems:

These can be identified by the patient, the physical therapist, or any other person and are statements that describe deficits that the therapist believes will occur if an intervention is not used for prevention.

Examination Strategy:

This is the plan for examination that a physical therapist uses based on the therapist's experience, available data relating to the patient, and information on similar patients. Because not all possible tests and measures are used, the choice is considered a hypothesis-driven strategy in the HOAC II.

Existing Problems:

These can be identified by the patient, the physical therapist, or any other person and are statements that describe deficits in a person's function (disability).

Goals:

Functional deficits are problems, whereas goals are descriptions of function that will be recovered as a result of one or more interventions.

Hypothesis:

The reason that a patient's problems (which are usually at the disability level) exist is not necessarily known, but in order for a physical therapist to carry out an intervention, the therapist must have an idea as to the underlying causes. In the HOAC II, the therapist's conjecture as to the cause is a hypothesis. Often there will be more than one hypothesis, and usually the hypothesis will involve one or more impairments causing a deficit in function (ie, a disability).

Intervention Strategy:

These are the overall types of interventions that the physical therapist believes are needed to alleviate problems (eg, exercises designed to increase range of motion are a strategy, whereas the specific exercises are tactics).

Non-Patient Identified Problems (NPIPs):

These are problems identified (at least initially) by people other than the patient, but that are added to the patient's problem list after consultation with the patient (these can be existing or anticipated problems).

Patient-Identified Problems (PIPs):

These are problems identified by the patient (these can be existing or anticipated problems), and because they are generated by the patient, they cannot be removed from the problem list without the patient's consent.

Predictive Criteria:

These are critical values (thresholds) for measurements, which, if met, would indicate that one or more problems will most likely be avoided because risk factors were reduced or eliminated. Sometimes the measurement may be how often someone does a task or whether a patient demonstrates competency in a prevention program (eg, does stretching or prophylactic back exercises).

Tactics:

These are the elements of an intervention. For instance, the exercises or techniques used to treat the patient or client are the specific elements of the intervention, whereas the overall purpose of the interventions is the strategy.

Testing Criteria:

These represent critical values (thresholds) for measurements, which, if achieved, would suggest the hypothesis (or hypotheses) is correct if the associated problem(s) is resolved (these are most often measurements of impairments).

Table 1.

Medical Outcome Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Scores
Obtained at Admission and Discharge as Compared With Age- and
Sex-Matched Normative Values

                       Physical    Role-       Bodily    General
                       Function    Physical    Pain      Health

Normal
  [bar]X (a)           83          80          72        70
  SD (b)               21          35          23        21
25th percentile (c)    75          75          52        62
2SEM (d)               12.3        22.6        15        17.6
Admission score        65          75          51        77
Discharge score        80          75          72        90

                                   Social         Role-        Mental
                       Vitality    Functioning    Emotional    Health

Normal
  [bar]X (a)           61           83             82          74
  SD (b)               21           21             33          18
25th percentile (c)    50           62.5           83          68
2SEM (d)               15.6         25.7           28          14
Admission score        40          100            100          56
Discharge score        60          100            100          84

(a) The mean value for each scale for female subjects without known
impairments or pathology between the ages of 45 and 54 years.

(b) The standard deviation for each scale for female subjects without
known impairments or pathology between the ages of 45 and 54 years.

(c) The 25th percentile score for female subjects without known
impairments or pathology between the ages of 45 and 54 years.

(d) Two standard error of measurement (2SEM) is equivalent to a 95%
confidence interval estimate of reliability.

Table 2.

Spinal Range-of-Motion and Straight-Leg-Raise Measurements (in Degrees)
Taken During the Examination and at Discharge

                      Forward    Backward    Left Side    Right Side
                      Bending    Bending     Bending      Bending

During examination     62        10          24           26
At discharge          108        33          36           35

                      Right Straight     Left Straight
                      Leg Raise          Leg Raise

During examination    68                 66
At discharge          93                 81

References

(1) Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. 2nd ed. Phys Ther. 2001;81: 9-744.

(2) Nagi S. Disability concepts revisited: implications for prevention. In: Pope AM, Tarlov AR, eds. Disability in America: Toward a National Agenda for Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991.

(3) Jette AM. Physical disablement concepts for physical therapy research and practice. Phys Ther. 1994;74:380-386.

(4) Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.

(5) Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain, part 1: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine. 1983;8:141-144.

(6) Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Solomon P, et al. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;76:359-365.

(7) Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, et al. The SF-36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ. 1993;306:1440-1444.

(8) Ware JE Jr, Snow KF, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, Mass: New England Medical Center.

(9) Beurskens AJHM, de Vet HCW, Koke AJA. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996;65:71-76.

(10) Mellin G, Harkapaa K, Vanharanta H, et al. Outcome of a multimodal treatment including intensive physical training of patients with chronic low back pain. Spine. 1993;18:825-829.

(11) Millard RW, Jones RH. Construct validity of practical questionnaires for assessing disability of low-back pain. Spine. 1991;16:835-838.

(12) Deyo RA, Rainville J, Kent DL. What can the history and physical examination tell us about low back pain? JAMA. 1992;268:760-765.

(13) Waddell G, Somerville D, Henderson I, Newton M. Objective clinical evaluation of physical impairment in chronic low back pain. Spine. 1992;17:617-628.

(14) Maitland GD. Vertebral Manipulation. 5th ed. London, England: Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd; 1986.

(15) Riddle DL. Measurement of accessory motion: critical issues and related concepts. Phys Ther. 1992;72:33-42.

(16) Maher C, Adams R. Reliability of pain and stiffness assessments in clinical manual lumbar spine examination. Phys Ther. 1994;74: 801-809.

(17) Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Gill C. Interrater reliability of lumbar accessory motion mobility testing. Phys Ther. 1995;75:786-792.

(18) Magee DJ. Orthopaedic Physical Assessment. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1997.

(19) Dionne CE, Koepsell TD, Von Korff M, et al. Predicting long-term functional limitations among back pain patients in primary care settings. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:31-43.

(20) Kelsey JL. An epidemiological study of acute herniated lumbar intervertebral discs. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1975;14:144-159.

(21) Magora A. Investigation of the relation between low back pain and occupation: physical requirements--sitting, standing, and weight lifting. Industr Med Surg. 1972;41:5-9.

(22) McKenzie RA. The Lumbar Spine: Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. Waikanae, New Zealand: Spinal Publications Ltd; 1981.

(23) Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998;78: 1197-1207.

(24) Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1186-1196.

* WB Saunders Therapy Products, Bloomington, MN 55439.

DL Riddle, PT, PhD, is Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.

JM Rothstein, PT, PhD, FAPTA, is Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1919 W Taylor St, 4th Fl, Room 456, Chicago, IL 60612 ([e-mail]). Address all correspondence to Dr Rothstein.

JL Echternach, PT, EdD, ECS, FAPTA, is Professor and Eminent Scholar, School of Physical Therapy, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va.

All authors provided concept/idea/project design, writing, and project management.

This article was submitted March 12, 2002, and was accepted December 2, 2002.