ABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to clarify the details of inpatient cancer rehabilitation interventions provided by designated cancer hospitals in Japan. Methods: This questionnaire-based survey asked specialists regarding the outline of their facilities’ inpatient cancer rehabilitation, Dietz classification, disease, and intervention details. Results: Restorative interventions were the most common, and the most common cancer was lung cancer followed by colorectal cancer; hematologic malignancy; gastric cancer; and liver, gallbladder, and pancreatic cancer. Intervention proportions for colorectal and gastric cancer were significantly higher in general hospitals than in university hospitals and cancer centers; in contrast, those for hematological malignancy were significantly higher in university hospitals than in general hospitals. For bone and soft tissue sarcomas, intervention proportions in cancer centers were significantly higher than those in university and general hospitals; and for oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal cancers, they were significantly higher in university hospitals and cancer centers than in general hospitals. The most common intervention was walking training, followed by resistance training, basic motor training, activities of daily living training, and respiratory rehabilitation. Respiratory rehabilitation was performed significantly more frequently in university and general hospitals than in cancer centers.Conclusion: The diseases had differed according to the characteristics of the facilities, and the interventions were considered accordingly. In future, it will be necessary to verify the effectiveness of inpatient cancer rehabilitation according to facility characteristics and to disseminate information on inpatient cancer rehabilitation.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To investigate the factors affecting the discharge destination of patients with spinal bone metastases. @*Methods@#We reviewed the medical records of patients admitted to our institute with a diagnosis of skeletalrelated events secondary to malignant disease. Exclusion criteria comprised decreased cognitive function and hypercalcemia, brain metastasis, peritoneal dissemination, and pleural dissemination. The factors examined included the discharge destination, age, sex, the Barthel Index (BI) at admission and discharge, pain at admission and discharge, number of co-resident household members, length of hospital stay, treatment strategy, spinal instability neoplastic score, vertebral body collapse, spinal level of bone metastases, and motor paralysis. For the discharge destination, patients at discharge were grouped into two categories. The home group included patients discharged to their own homes, and the non-home group included patients discharged to other hospitals. @*Results@#Of 140 patients, the home group comprised 120 patients and the non-home group comprised 20 patients. Activities of daily living (ADL) and pain at rest and during motion improved significantly in the home group, whereas only pain at rest and during motion improved significantly in the non-home group. The results indicated that discharge BI and motor paralysis were the best predictors of the discharge destination; a BI cut-off value of 72.5 predicted discharge to home. @*Conclusion@#This study showed that the ADL level on discharge and motor paralysis affected the discharge destination of patients with spinal bone metastases. These results are likely to be helpful in predicting the discharge destination of patients with spinal bone metastases.