Re: Quantifying quality -Reply
Ed Lemaire
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Quantifying quality -Reply
Creator:
Ed Lemaire
Date:
9/8/1999
Text:
Here are a few comments on your response ... and one extra point for
discussion:
1) Prosthetics is NOT nuclear physics in exactness, but it is NOT a
loosely relative matter either.
This is a good point, and one that has had me thinking for some time (it
related to the quality discussion too). We know that people must
accommodate to any device that is secured to their residual limb. I have
been curious as to what is the tolerance/range that a prosthetist must
work within.
I expect that, if I took 10 experienced and respected prosthetists and
asked them to fit the same 10 clients, each client would have 10 sockets
of different shape. These sockets would also be comfortable and
acceptable - once the fitting process has finished. Perhaps a better
understanding of how people with amputations accommodate to a socket
will help to define a quality prosthesis.
2) Talent for the work IS a reality which can be evaluated.
Please post some details as to how you think Talent can be measured ...
3) I received an interesting email from Wayne Renardson that identified
comfort as the most important measure of quality. He defined comfort as
follows Difficult to define 'comfort' for you but let me give it a shot. A
talented prosthetist is one who can make a socket that permits me to
walk without pain or discomfort.
Unfortunately, comfort is difficult to measure [beyond stating that the
prosthesis is a) comfortable or b) not comfortable]. If our task is to be
able to come up with a method of evaluating a prosthesis (fit, alignment,
components, etc.) then we would need a more precise, and reliable,
method of measuring comfort.
Do most of you consider comfort to be the main objective of the
prosthetic fitting process? What about function, cosmesis, security, ...?
I would expect that the main objective varies with the client; however, I
anticipate that some groups of people have similar objectives (i.e.,
geriatric / low activity, runner, etc.).
Edward Lemaire, PhD
Research Associate
The Rehabilitation Centre
(613) 737-7350 x5592
>>> George Boyer < <Email Address Redacted> > 09/08/99 11:20pm >>>
Then, the converse is implied: untalented prosthetists do not
exist.....badly made prostheses are an illusion. Of course this is
ridiculous but this is the direction your thinking leads. Prosthetics is NOT
nuclear physics in exactness, but it is NOT a loosely relative matter
either. Talent for the work IS a reality which can be evaluated. Passing
certification exams does NOT necessarily indicate such talent. Talent IS
indispensable for consistent high quality prosthetic work and amputee
satisfaction. Talent CAN (and must) be evaluated during the exposure of
the student in extended residency. GB.
discussion:
1) Prosthetics is NOT nuclear physics in exactness, but it is NOT a
loosely relative matter either.
This is a good point, and one that has had me thinking for some time (it
related to the quality discussion too). We know that people must
accommodate to any device that is secured to their residual limb. I have
been curious as to what is the tolerance/range that a prosthetist must
work within.
I expect that, if I took 10 experienced and respected prosthetists and
asked them to fit the same 10 clients, each client would have 10 sockets
of different shape. These sockets would also be comfortable and
acceptable - once the fitting process has finished. Perhaps a better
understanding of how people with amputations accommodate to a socket
will help to define a quality prosthesis.
2) Talent for the work IS a reality which can be evaluated.
Please post some details as to how you think Talent can be measured ...
3) I received an interesting email from Wayne Renardson that identified
comfort as the most important measure of quality. He defined comfort as
follows Difficult to define 'comfort' for you but let me give it a shot. A
talented prosthetist is one who can make a socket that permits me to
walk without pain or discomfort.
Unfortunately, comfort is difficult to measure [beyond stating that the
prosthesis is a) comfortable or b) not comfortable]. If our task is to be
able to come up with a method of evaluating a prosthesis (fit, alignment,
components, etc.) then we would need a more precise, and reliable,
method of measuring comfort.
Do most of you consider comfort to be the main objective of the
prosthetic fitting process? What about function, cosmesis, security, ...?
I would expect that the main objective varies with the client; however, I
anticipate that some groups of people have similar objectives (i.e.,
geriatric / low activity, runner, etc.).
Edward Lemaire, PhD
Research Associate
The Rehabilitation Centre
(613) 737-7350 x5592
>>> George Boyer < <Email Address Redacted> > 09/08/99 11:20pm >>>
Then, the converse is implied: untalented prosthetists do not
exist.....badly made prostheses are an illusion. Of course this is
ridiculous but this is the direction your thinking leads. Prosthetics is NOT
nuclear physics in exactness, but it is NOT a loosely relative matter
either. Talent for the work IS a reality which can be evaluated. Passing
certification exams does NOT necessarily indicate such talent. Talent IS
indispensable for consistent high quality prosthetic work and amputee
satisfaction. Talent CAN (and must) be evaluated during the exposure of
the student in extended residency. GB.
Citation
Ed Lemaire, “Re: Quantifying quality -Reply,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 23, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213148.
