
Portology
Premium Platinum








So the app must have said bob's your uncle and no need for for a SCAT5. From page 5 ie the page before the multi times copied page 6, into this thread.
View attachment 1760862
Thanks REH. Gee I hate people who write processes, it's enough to give me a bloody migraine.
Not the first protocol written (by one of their own, with lawyers sniffing the ink?) with ambiguity/leeway for the responsible attending professional.
Let's poke the process a bit and see what pops out.
A quick (by design) screening is not a formal diagnosis, so what does "should be used (with)" the (I guess) more comprehensive/time consuming SCAT5 mean in practice? If HIA says OK, doc makes an on the spot call whether to use SCAT5? In theory they should feel no conflict or pressure ruling a player out. In practice, humans under perceived time pressure, with mortgages, who grew up in their framework of what is/isn't OK make different errors of bias... objectively ("by the numbers") and subjectively (what's "OK" to them on the spectrum of consensus). It's not like they get to spend hours practicing this skill like um, goal kicking...
"...and clinical judgement" the final catch-all, you'd think means "even if they pass HIA or SCAT5, you get the final call, doc". So they get that first call too, whether to go to SCAT5 or not. Should maybe should be must there? AFL doesn't necessarily need the extra expense of independent docs at each game, but it could remove a few more degrees of freedom from the club docs currently delegated to assessing head clashes.