A new motor deficit after injury
A patient is assessed after an upper-limb injury. Before immobilization, the team records finger and wrist movements, relevant sensation and circulation. Later, the patient reports a new inability to perform a movement that had been present earlier. A learner assumes the finding must be pain and suggests waiting until the next routine appointment. The clinician recognizes that pain, swelling, tendon injury, compression or another neurological problem may contribute, and that a change from baseline deserves assessment. The original examination is valuable because it permits a comparison rather than an argument from memory. Reassessment and communication must occur through the appropriate responsible team, with the immobilization, tissue status and complete clinical context considered.
1. Why is the baseline useful?
Read the worked answer
It provides a documented comparison showing what has changed, including motor, sensory and vascular findings. This is more reliable than assuming every deficit was present from the injury.
2. What should happen next?
Read the worked answer
Promptly reassess and communicate the new deficit through the responsible clinical pathway. Do not label it harmless or independently manipulate a device without the appropriate assessment and authority.