1 / 11

Cognitive Case Study: Pat

By: Sarah Dobbs, Amanda Jones, Marisa Sevick. Cognitive Case Study: Pat. Background:Pat. 57 y/o woman who sustained a TBI after a MVA at the age of 16. Lives in a single story home with two roommates A ssistants come in frequently to help with tasks. No family living

callum
Télécharger la présentation

Cognitive Case Study: Pat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. By: Sarah Dobbs, Amanda Jones, Marisa Sevick Cognitive Case Study: Pat

  2. Background:Pat • 57 y/o woman who sustained a TBI after a MVA at the age of 16. • Lives in a single story home with two roommates • Assistants come in frequentlyto help with tasks. • No family living • Does have close friends and support through church family

  3. Initial Eval Assessments • Short Blessed Screening Test • Score of 14 (further assessment needed) • Deficits observed: • Short-term memory: Ex. address to remember-Ct. repeated it out loud 4 x’s and could not recall any of it when asked. • Attention: Ex. Listing months of the year reversed-Ct. initially didn’t listen to directions and said months in correct order.

  4. Initial Eval Assessments • Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test • Ct. scored moderate-severe in all domains except language (mild severity) and clock drawing (WNL*) • Summary Scores by deficit area/severity: • Attention: 59 = moderately impaired • Memory: 129 = moderately impaired • Executive Functioning: 15 = severely impaired

  5. Tx Task Chosen/Rationale • Task: • Focus on memory to work on identification information • Rationale: • Client centered • Moderate impairment per eval • Safety • Transferable to other areas

  6. FOR forTx Session • Levels of Awareness • Establishing anticipatory awareness • Not easiest to determine • Still at emergent level • Facilitate recognition compensations

  7. LTG and STG for Ct. • LTG: Client will increase short-term memory abilities marked by use of compensatory strategies (ie. reference informational card) 85% of occurrences with no cuing, during therapy tasks, by 11/11/11. • STG: Client will increase awareness and demonstrate understanding by verbalizing at least 2 scenarios, with minimal cues, which she could use her compensatory strategy, by the end of the first session. • STG: Client will demonstrate use of compensatory strategies (ie. reference informational card), for memory and attention deficits, 70% of occurrences with min. cuing, during scenario task, by the 10/20/11.

  8. Initial TxSession • Some anticipatory awareness was observed • Cueing necessary • Lack of information for tx task • THINK ON OUR TOES!!! • Focus on phone number with memory strategy and 5 min. of distraction • Able to recall after 4 attempts

  9. Further TX Sessions • Review tx session prior • Discuss safety concerns • ID card and its use • Changes in routine • Other memory compensations • Daily routine • Calendar • Checklist • Focus on Independence

  10. Group Reflection • Ct.’s deficits were easy to identify but hard to implement in tx. • Some anticipatory awareness was foundafter cueing • Did well with thinking on our toes with what we had to work with • More backup tasks were needed • Great learning experience!

  11. Questions?

More Related