Does this write goals for me?

No. It reads what you have written and reports which structural components it could and could not find. It does not suggest wording, generate goals, or say anything about medical necessity — those need knowing the person, and there is nowhere here to enter anything about one.

What makes a goal unscoreable?

No number. “Patient will improve ambulation” cannot be scored at any point, because there is no fact of the matter about whether it has happened. The test is whether two clinicians looking at the same person could disagree about whether it was achieved.

Why does it flag words like “improve” and “tolerate”?

Because they feel like they are specifying something and are not. They sit where a measurement belongs, which is what makes them easy to miss — the sentence reads as though it says something definite. Each is flagged with the question it fails to answer.

It says a component is missing but it is there.

That is possible and the tool says so with every result. Detection is pattern-based, so a component phrased in a way it does not recognise will be reported as not found. That is why nothing says “missing” — it says it could not find something, which is a weaker and more honest claim.

What does the percentage mean?

How many of the five structural components were found, and nothing else. A goal can score 100% and be a poor goal — whether it is the right goal, achievable, or relevant is not visible in a sentence.

Is anything I type sent anywhere?

No. It all runs in your browser and nothing is uploaded. Even so, goals are written about people, so keep them de-identified as you would anywhere else.

Rehabilitation Goal Quality Checker

Q: Is an impairment goal wrong?

No, and the checker does not say it is. Range of motion and strength goals are legitimate and often necessary. It points out when a goal is written entirely at the impairment level because the useful question is usually what that impairment is stopping the person doing.

Checks whether a written goal has its parts — an activity, conditions, an assistance level, something measurable, and a deadline. It looks at structure, not content, and a goal that cannot be scored at the end was usually unscoreable the day it was written.

Structure only This cannot tell whether a goal is clinically appropriate, achievable, or relevant to anyone — that needs knowing the person, and there is nowhere here to enter anything about one. It does not write goals, suggest wording, or say anything about medical necessity.

Your goals

One per line.

The five components

What actually goes wrong

Almost every unusable goal fails in one of three ways, and all three are visible in the sentence.

Nothing to measure. “Patient will improve ambulation” cannot be scored, ever. There is no number, so at the end of the episode there is no fact of the matter about whether it was met. The word improve is standing where a measurement should be, and it looks like it is doing a job.

No deadline. A goal that is measurable but open-ended has no moment at which it is met or not met. It simply persists, getting carried forward from note to note.

No assistance level. “Will walk 150 feet” describes several very different outcomes depending on whether that is with two people, a rollator, or nothing at all. Without it the sentence does not distinguish between them.

Vague words that look like measurements

Certain words feel like they are specifying something and are not. Improve, increase, tolerate, maximise, as tolerated, within normal limits, demonstrate understanding, good technique.

Each is flagged here with the question it fails to answer. The test is simple: could two clinicians looking at the same person disagree about whether it had been achieved? If so, it needs a number.

Activity or impairment

“Increase knee flexion to 120 degrees” is measurable, has a deadline and is perfectly legitimate. It is also not a functional goal — it describes a measurement of the body rather than something the person does.

Both have their place, and impairment goals are not a mistake. The checker points out when a goal is written entirely at the impairment level, because the useful question is usually what that impairment is stopping the person doing, and that is the thing worth writing down.

What it cannot see

Whether the goal is right. Whether it matters to the person. Whether the number is achievable, or too easy, or measures the thing you actually care about. Whether it belongs in the plan at all. Those are the questions that make a goal good, and none of them is visible in a sentence.

It is also imperfect at what it does attempt. A component phrased in an unexpected way will be reported as not found, which is why nothing here says missing — it says it could not find something, which is a different and more honest claim.