Why We Reassess: Tracking Progress Instead of Guessing

By Dr. Michael Minenna D.C., B.Sc., SFMA, FMS

If you've been treated at our clinic, you've probably noticed we don't just ask "how does it feel?" and carry on. We re-test. We re-measure movements, re-check strength, and compare where you are today against where you started. It can feel like extra steps, but reassessment is one of the most important things a clinician can do — and one of the most commonly skipped. Here's why we build it into your care.

"It feels a bit better" isn't enough to steer by

Pain is real and it matters, but on its own it's a noisy guide. It fluctuates with sleep, stress, the weather, and what you did yesterday. If we judge progress only by how you feel on a given day, we can be misled in both directions — discouraged by a bad-weather flare, or falsely reassured by a good day that doesn't reflect real change. To actually know whether a plan is working, we need more stable, objective markers alongside how you feel.

What we actually measure

A baseline assessment gives us concrete reference points: how a movement looks and whether it provokes symptoms, ranges of motion, strength, and your ability to do the specific tasks that matter to you.¹ These become the yardstick. When we reassess, we're comparing against that baseline — not a vague memory of where you were three weeks ago. That turns "I think it's a little better" into "your painful movement has improved and you can now load it without symptoms," which is a far more useful piece of information.

It also keeps the plan honest. Tracking the things that matter to you — getting back to running, lifting your kid, sleeping through the night — makes sure treatment stays aimed at your goals rather than drifting.

Reassessment is how we course-correct

Here's the real payoff: reassessing tells us whether to stay the course or change it. If the objective measures are improving, we have evidence the plan is working and we progress the loading. If they've stalled, that's a signal to dig deeper, adjust the approach, or look further up the chain for a driver we haven't addressed yet. Without reassessment, it's easy to keep doing the same thing for weeks simply out of habit, whether or not it's helping.

This fits directly with how we manage rehab. There are no bad exercises, only too much too soon — and reassessing your response to loading is exactly how we know whether the dose is right. If something flared you up, the data tells us to dial back; if you've adapted well, it tells us you're ready for more.

It keeps care evidence-based and accountable

Leading clinical guidelines for musculoskeletal pain emphasize monitoring progress and adjusting care accordingly, rather than applying the same passive treatment indefinitely.² Reassessment is how that principle becomes real in the room. It also protects you from open-ended treatment that never quite ends — if a plan isn't producing measurable change, you deserve to know, and to have the approach changed.

And because we monitor your response to load over time, we can build you up safely rather than guessing.³ The result is usually faster, more confident progress, because every few visits we're checking the map instead of just driving.

The takeaway

Reassessment isn't busywork — it's the difference between a plan that's genuinely working and one that just feels like it might be. It keeps your care targeted, honest, and pointed at the goals that matter to you. At Boreal Spine & Sport, we measure, we re-measure, and we adjust — because you deserve to know your care is actually moving you forward, not just hoping it is.

References

1. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ, Voight M. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(3):396-409.
2. Lin I, Wiles L, Waller R, et al. What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(2):79-86.
3. Gabbett TJ. The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(5):273-280.