Sarcopenia Case Study

783 Words2 Pages

Sarcopenia is one of many diagnoses from Mr. F’s medical chart. I know the purpose of this assignment isto focus on sarcopenia. However, I have to admit, I find this task quite challenging. The ultimate goal of my treatment is to engage Mr. F in “occupations” and purposeful activities. I not only address one specific diagnosis, but also his individual physical, emotional, cognitive performance as well as his environment. To me the ICF model offers dynamic understanding of disability not as individual diagnosis but an intricate weave of personal, social and environmental factors. I agree that treatment of sarcopenia for Mr. F is important. The changes in muscle properties and performance have significant effects on his ability to engage in meaningful occupations. However, increased muscle mass would never be the primary focus of my treatment. The desired outcome of my intervention would improve his occupational performance in self-care activities and functional mobility allowing him to return to his prior level of function, facilitating his satisfaction with his performance and improving his quality of life through role competence relating to husband and self-caregiver.
My evaluation always begins with assessing patient’s needs, problems, and concerns. Therefore, together with Mr. F we would determine his daily tasks and activities he must and wants to do within his own environment having in mind diagnosis of sarcopenia. In order to ensure the best results of OT intervention, it is of most importance that Mr. F’s “story” and my “story” have the same ending. Mr. F expressed being dependent on his wife for activities of daily living and not being able to climb stairs as his main concerns at this time. I will then observe actual...

... middle of paper ...

...icipation. After making environment modifications and providing proper adaptive equipment, I facilitate increased participation in meaningful and purposeful activities. During the process of intervention, the environmental factors will continue to have a relationship with other domains, but the strength will be weaker. Once Mr. F’s participation increases following environment modifications, I see stronger relationships between body structures/functions and participations. For example, as Mr. F’s participation increases, I anticipate improvements in mental function (satisfaction of being able to perform tasks independently or at least with minimal assistance) as well as cardiovascular and neuromusculoskeletal functions (increased endurance and strength).
Successful intervention requires achieving balance of three interacting factors: person, task and environment.

Open Document