An analysis of assessment instruments for the minimally responsive patient (MRP): clinical observations

The purpose for presenting these cases is to report on clinical observations that may have relevance for improvement in individuals responding minimally to their environment as a result of a severe traumatic brain injury. Specifically, the authors observe that there is a sub-group of minimally responsive patients who, when given sensory stimulation, show an increase in responding that is being under-reported with current assessment instruments. Further, subtle changes in responding can occur over a wide temporal gradient and under-reporting of said changes may result in the premature cessation of a beneficial therapeutic intervention. Advantages and disadvantages of the instruments that have been developed to specifically assess responses to sensory stimulation are discussed. The authors' observations suggest that clinical findings do not correlate with assessment scores. These provisory observations indicate that there is a need to develop methodologically sound tools that will accurately monitor individuals throughout the rehabilitative process.

[1]  B. Wilson,et al.  A review of behavioural assessment scales for monitoring recovery in and after coma with pilot data on a new scale of visual awareness , 1993 .

[2]  E. Lewinn,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL DEPRIVATION AND ENRICHMENT IN COMA , 1978, The Lancet.

[3]  T. McMillan,et al.  A review of the evidence for the effectiveness of sensory stimulation treatment for coma and vegetative states , 1993 .

[4]  J. White,et al.  Innovative sensory input for the comatose brain-injured patient. , 1995, Critical care nursing clinics of North America.

[5]  R. Wood,et al.  Evaluating sensory regulation as a method to improve awareness in patients with altered states of consciousness: a pilot study. , 1992, Brain injury.

[6]  M. E. Hall,et al.  The effectiveness of directed multisensory stimulation versus non-directed stimulation in comatose CHI patients: pilot study of a single subject design. , 1992, Brain injury.

[7]  K. Kater Response of Head-Injured Patients to Sensory Stimulation , 1989, Western journal of nursing research.

[8]  R. Munday,et al.  The Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Technique (SMART): A Comprehensive and Integrated Assessment and Treatment Protocol for the Vegetative State and Minimally Responsive Patient , 1999 .

[9]  M. Rappaport,et al.  Evaluation of coma and vegetative states. , 1992, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  B. J. Ansell Slow-to-recover brain-injured patients: rationale for treatment. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  M. O'dell,et al.  Standardized assessment instruments for minimally-responsive, brain-injured patients. , 1996, NeuroRehabilitation.

[12]  McKay Moore Sohlberg,et al.  Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation : theory and practice , 1989 .

[13]  L. Murray,et al.  Revisiting the Glasgow Coma Scale and Coma Score , 2000, Intensive Care Medicine.

[14]  T. I. King,et al.  Introduction to Cognitive Rehabilitation: Theory and Practice , 1991 .

[15]  C. Sosnowski,et al.  Early Intervention: Coma Stimulation in the Intensive Care Unit , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses.

[16]  B. Jennett,et al.  Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. , 1974, Lancet.

[17]  R. Wood,et al.  Sensory regulation as a method to promote recovery in patients with altered states of consciousness , 1993 .

[18]  B. J. Ansell,et al.  The Western Neuro Sensory Stimulation Profile: a tool for assessing slow-to-recover head-injured patients. , 1989, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[19]  V. A. Bradley,et al.  Coma arousal procedure: a therapeutic intervention in the treatment of head injury. , 1990, Brain injury.

[20]  J. Eldredge Rehabilitation of the Head Injured Adult , 1984 .