Amerikan Hekimler Birliği (AMA) Kalıcı Engelliliğin Değerlendirmesi Kılavuzu

Ülkemizde engel oranı hesaplanmasında farklı tarihlerde güncellenmiş yönetmelikler kullanılmaktadır. Bu yönetmeliklere göre ortaya çıkan engel oranları sıklıkla birbirinden farklı olmakta ve yönetmeliklerde yer almayan tanı/hastalıklar/kısıtlılık durumunda takdir/inisiyatif kullanılabilmektedir. Ülkemizde bilimsel kriterlere göre hazırlanmış, takdire yer bırakmayacak şekilde hesaplamaya izin verecek tek bir kılavuzun kullanılması zorunluluk haline gelmiştir. Amerikan Tıp Akademisinin hazırladığı kılavuzun amacı travma ve/veya hastalık sonucu ölçülebilir fiziksel ve/veya psikolojik kayıplar yaşayan bireylere verilecek maddi tazminatın belirlenmesine yardımcı olmak için engel oranı saptamaktır. Ülkemizdeki mevcut sıkıntıları ortadan kaldıracağını düşündüğümüz Amerikan Tıp Akademisinin hazırladığı Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Avrupa’da kullanılan Engellilik Değerlendirmesi Kılavuzu hakkında bilgi vermek amacıyla bu derleme hazırlanmıştır.

American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment

Updated regulations on different dates are used for calculating the disability rate in our country. Disability rates calculated according to these regulations are often different from each other and in case of diagnosis / diseases / limitations that are not included in the regulations, discretion / initiative can be used. A single guide which is prepared according to the scientific criteria and will allow the calculation in a way that does not leave any discretion has become necessary for our country. The aim of the guideline prepared by the American Medical Academy is to determine the rate of disability to help determine the financial compensation to be given to individuals experiencing measurable physical and psychological losses as a result of trauma and illness. This review has been prepared to provide information about the Disability Assessment Manual used by the American Medical Academy, which we think will eliminate the current problems in our country.

Kaynakça

1. American Medical Association. A guide to the evaluation of permanent impairment of the extremities and back. JAMA. 1958; 166 (suppl): 1-122.

2. American Medical Association. In: Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Chicago, 111: American Medical Association; 1971.

3. Ranavaya MI, Rondinelli RD. The major US disability ancfcompensation systems: origins and historical overview. In: Rondinelli RD, Katz RT, eds. Impairment Rating and Disability Evaluation. Philadelphia, Pa:WB Saunders Co; 2000:3-16.

4. American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 3rd ed. Chicago, 111: American Medical Association; 1988.

5. American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 4th ed. Chicago, 111: American Medical Association; 1993.

6. Rondinelli RD, Katz RT. Merits and shortcomings of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th edition: a physiatric perspective. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2002;13:355-370. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-9651(01)00007-9

7. Cocchiarella L, Andersson GBJ, eds. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 5th ed. Chicago, AMA Press; 2001.

8. Spieler EA, Barth PS, Burton IF, et al. Recommendations to guide revision of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. JAMA. 2000;283:519-523. doi: https://doi. org/10.1001/jama.283.4.519

9. Rondinelli DR. Eds. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 6th ed. Chicago, AMA Press; 2007.

10. American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent impairment. 2nd ed. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1984.

11. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.)

12. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: selfmaintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179-186.

13. Mahoney FI, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J. 1965;14:56-61.

14. Wade DT, Collins C. The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disability Stud. 1988;10:64- 67. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288809164105

15. World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980.

16. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: IGF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.

17. Spector R. Cultural Diversity in Health and Illness. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc; 2004.

18. Ranavaya MI, Andersson GB. The impairment and disability evaluations In: Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Polatin PB, eds. Occupational Musculoskeletal Disorders: Function, Outcomes & Evidence. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2001.

19. Anagnostis C, Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. The pain disability questionnaire: a new psychometrically sound measure for chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Spine. 2004;29:2290-2302. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000142221.88111.0f

20. ACC/AHA/ASE 2003 guideline update for the clinical application of echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:954-70; Circulation. 2003;108:114-662; and J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2003;16:1091-1110. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0735-1097(03)01065-9

21. Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V. Standardisation of spirometry: ATS/ERS Task Force; standardisation of lung function testing. Eur Respir J. 2005;26:319-338. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1183/09031936.05.00034805

22. Freedburg IM, Eisen AZ, Wolff K, Austen KF, Goldsmith LA, Katz S. Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2003.

23. Hoffman R, Benz E, Shattil S, et al. Hematology: Basic Principles and Practice. 4th ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 2005.

24. Larsen PR, Kronenberg HM, Melmed S, Polonsky KS, eds. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology. 10th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 2003.

25. American Academy of Otolaryngology Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium and American Council of Otolaryngology Committee on the Medical Aspects of Noise. Guide for the evaluation of hearing handicap. JAMA. 1979;241:2055-2059. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.1979.03290450053025

26. World Health Organization. Consultation on Development of Standards for the Characterization of Vision Loss and Visual Functioning. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO/PBL/03.91; 2003. Available as PDF at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ hq/2003/WHO_PBL_03.91. pdf. Accessed May 2007.

27. Strab RL, Black RW. Mental Status Examination in Neurology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: FA Davis Co; 1993.

28. Walton J, Gilliatt RW, Hutchinson M, et al, eds. Aids to the Examination of the Peripheral Nervous System. 4th ed. London, England: Bailliere Tindall; 2000.

29. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association;2000.

30. Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological Testing, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1996.

31. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association;2000.

32. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW, with Hannay HJ, Fischer JS. Neuropsychological Assessment. 4th ed. Oxford,, NY: Oxford University Press Inc;2004.

33. American Academy of Neurology. Assessment: neuropsychological testing of adults. Neurology. 1996;47:592-599. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/16.3.255

34. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Joint Motion: Method of Measuring and Recording. Chicago, 111: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1965.

35. Lea RD, Gerhardt JJ. Current concepts review: range- ofmotion measurements. J Bone Joint Surg. 1995;77A:784- 798. doi: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199505000- 00017

36. Nitschke JE, Nattrass CL, Disler PB, Chou MJ, Ooi KT. Reliability of the American Medical Association Guides’ model for measuring spinal range of motion; its implication for whole-person impairment rating. Spine. 1999;24 (3):262- 268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199902010- 00013

Kaynak Göster