Responses: PAVET and MPK-s
Stephan Manucharian
Description
Collection
Title:
Responses: PAVET and MPK-s
Creator:
Stephan Manucharian
Date:
6/14/2012
Text:
>
> Dear List,
>
>
>
> To my original post:
>
> Dear List,I am sure most of you are familiar with PAVET protocol for assessment of eligibility for MPKs ( <URL Redacted>, such as C-Leg. My questions are as follows.
>
> 1. Are non-Hanger facilities use this form? If yes, then how legitimate is its use, as the form claims to be Copyrighted.
> 2. Protocols like this that at the end give valuation of the functional capabilities should be scientifically validated to present clinical value. I failed to find any research studies in that respect. Could anyone direct me to such studies, if they exist?
> 3. If indeed, this protocol is not validated, then what is the value of it? Is there an alternative? What objective assessment tool do you use in your practice to justify the use of MPKs?
>
> The following answers were received.
> I think Bob Gailey PT has some you can use or has some research out there that utilizes a PAVET type scoring system
>
>
>
> I use Otto Bock's MPK eval form. It might be just like the PAVET form. I am not sure if any of the other MPK manufacturers have a similar form. I have only fit Otto Bock microprocessors. It works well for our practice and I feel it is good additional documentation to have in the patients chart in the event an insurance company requests more clinical reasoning.
>
>
>
> I've had the same question about copyright. As far as the rest - my understanding is that this tool has not been validated. A validated tool would be best, but without that, a good tool is better than no tool.
>
>
>
> I am familiar with the PAVET test for K3 evaluation for microprocessor knees. As this is a Hanger exam, we, an independent facility, feel more confident in using the AMP-PRO/AMP NO-PRO developed by Bob Gailey, PT. This test can be used by patients with/without their prosthesis on. The test has been researched and proven over and over to be able to identify the K-level and can also be used to document improvement or degradation. <URL Redacted>
>
>
>
> The form is available online for anyone to print. we use the form if we think the health plan will authorize services or pay quicker. One health plan utilization review requests providers to use part of form to determine if someone qualfies for any prosthesis.
>
>
>
> That's a good call on the validation thing. I think Ossur had a similar form at one point for the Rheo, but that may be a lie because I can't find find it currently.
>
>
>
> Interesting questions and comments. I am unfamiliar with PAVET, and will review. At present, I am not aware of any hard scientific evidence that objectively quantifies potential therapeutic, restorative and rehabilitation value in MKPs. At best, it's mostly provisional conjecture, but wholly unsubstantiated. I think this situation will eventually ( inevitably) prove itself an embarrassment to our profession. I do not underestimate the mechanical attributes of MPKs and their potential mechanical contribution to rehabilitation as well as functional restoration, but our arguments supporting such possible contributions are weak and unconvincing.
>
>
>
> Come on, it's Hanger. They have to take something of value and restrict it to them only. Personally, I just took the general information and altered it slightly to make my own prosthetic assessment form. Since linkia and hanger's pavet form is used by some insurance companies, we use certain key terms to ensure that categories are met, but without detailed clinical proof, your altered form will be just as valid as theirs is.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> --
> Stephan R. Manucharian, M.A., MSc, CP, BOCO, LP(NJ)
> Clinical Director
> Orthopedic Arts Laboratory, Inc.
> 141 Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11201
> 718-858-2400; Fax: 718-858-9258;
> <URL Redacted>
>
> The content of this communication is for exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged and non-disclosable information. If the recipient of this communication is not the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from printing, photocopying, saving on any media, distributing or otherwise using the information contained herein. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender by e-mail, fax or telephone and destroy this document.
>
>
> Dear List,
>
>
>
> To my original post:
>
> Dear List,I am sure most of you are familiar with PAVET protocol for assessment of eligibility for MPKs ( <URL Redacted>, such as C-Leg. My questions are as follows.
>
> 1. Are non-Hanger facilities use this form? If yes, then how legitimate is its use, as the form claims to be Copyrighted.
> 2. Protocols like this that at the end give valuation of the functional capabilities should be scientifically validated to present clinical value. I failed to find any research studies in that respect. Could anyone direct me to such studies, if they exist?
> 3. If indeed, this protocol is not validated, then what is the value of it? Is there an alternative? What objective assessment tool do you use in your practice to justify the use of MPKs?
>
> The following answers were received.
> I think Bob Gailey PT has some you can use or has some research out there that utilizes a PAVET type scoring system
>
>
>
> I use Otto Bock's MPK eval form. It might be just like the PAVET form. I am not sure if any of the other MPK manufacturers have a similar form. I have only fit Otto Bock microprocessors. It works well for our practice and I feel it is good additional documentation to have in the patients chart in the event an insurance company requests more clinical reasoning.
>
>
>
> I've had the same question about copyright. As far as the rest - my understanding is that this tool has not been validated. A validated tool would be best, but without that, a good tool is better than no tool.
>
>
>
> I am familiar with the PAVET test for K3 evaluation for microprocessor knees. As this is a Hanger exam, we, an independent facility, feel more confident in using the AMP-PRO/AMP NO-PRO developed by Bob Gailey, PT. This test can be used by patients with/without their prosthesis on. The test has been researched and proven over and over to be able to identify the K-level and can also be used to document improvement or degradation. <URL Redacted>
>
>
>
> The form is available online for anyone to print. we use the form if we think the health plan will authorize services or pay quicker. One health plan utilization review requests providers to use part of form to determine if someone qualfies for any prosthesis.
>
>
>
> That's a good call on the validation thing. I think Ossur had a similar form at one point for the Rheo, but that may be a lie because I can't find find it currently.
>
>
>
> Interesting questions and comments. I am unfamiliar with PAVET, and will review. At present, I am not aware of any hard scientific evidence that objectively quantifies potential therapeutic, restorative and rehabilitation value in MKPs. At best, it's mostly provisional conjecture, but wholly unsubstantiated. I think this situation will eventually ( inevitably) prove itself an embarrassment to our profession. I do not underestimate the mechanical attributes of MPKs and their potential mechanical contribution to rehabilitation as well as functional restoration, but our arguments supporting such possible contributions are weak and unconvincing.
>
>
>
> Come on, it's Hanger. They have to take something of value and restrict it to them only. Personally, I just took the general information and altered it slightly to make my own prosthetic assessment form. Since linkia and hanger's pavet form is used by some insurance companies, we use certain key terms to ensure that categories are met, but without detailed clinical proof, your altered form will be just as valid as theirs is.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> --
> Stephan R. Manucharian, M.A., MSc, CP, BOCO, LP(NJ)
> Clinical Director
> Orthopedic Arts Laboratory, Inc.
> 141 Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11201
> 718-858-2400; Fax: 718-858-9258;
> <URL Redacted>
>
> The content of this communication is for exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged and non-disclosable information. If the recipient of this communication is not the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from printing, photocopying, saving on any media, distributing or otherwise using the information contained herein. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender by e-mail, fax or telephone and destroy this document.
>
>
Citation
Stephan Manucharian, “Responses: PAVET and MPK-s,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 25, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/233767.
