Our discussion forums are available to anyone to read, but you must be a member to reply or start new topics. Log-in or register to get started.

This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Sarah Johannigmeier 5 months, 2 weeks ago.

  • Author
  • #470651

    Sarah Johannigmeier

    I had question about case study question 1- I was wondering what made D (reassessment 3-4 months with home program) the better answer versus A seeing in outpatient 1x/week. I know there is a huge emphasis on early identification of need of services and addressing motor delays early. I understand you would educate in both scenarios, but is it saying that the TIMP might not correctly identify that there was a true motor delay at age of 1 month corrected age? Or that it is just better to wait until 3 months to get more valid measure? Thanks for any insight!

  • #470700

    Jessica Lewis

    Hello Sarah!

    In this scenario, at one month corrected age the child score in the low average range on the TIMP. Since the infant is not showing any major delays, supporting the family with a home program on areas that the child might be needing more help in would be best in this scenario. In the clinic, if there are any other more concerning signs (ex. asymmetries, abnormal GMA score, etc.), more frequent therapy would definitely warrant increased frequency and a more urgent need for therapy. In this case, no other signs/symptoms were noted in the question, so HEP with scheduled follow-up would be the best plan.

    In the case of the TIMP, it is still a good measure to determine if delays are present at any age. It is just most predictive of future motor delays at approximately 3 months corrected age.

  • #471143

    Sarah Johannigmeier

    Thanks for the explanation!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.