Fractured Knowledge: Making Sense of Exercise in Patients With Bone Metastases.

PURPOSE: Traditional dogma suggests that individuals with cancer-related bone metastases should restrict their physical activity, potentially engaging cautiously in isometric exercises. However, occurrences of adverse skeletal events during supervised exercise in patients with known metastatic bone lesions are exceedingly rare, contrasting with the substantial risks of inactivity. Recent studies advocate for well-designed exercise regimens for individuals with bone metastases, highlighting the potential benefits of enhanced mental well-being, fatigue mitigation, enhanced physical function, and an overall improved quality of life. As cancer rehabilitation physicians, it falls within our scope of practice to diagnose, assess, and manage risk while emphasizing the role of exercise and rehabilitation therapies, accompanied by necessary precautions, for individuals with metastatic cancer. This review aims to explore the safety and feasibility of exercise interventions for individuals affected by metastatic bone disease.

The Risk of Lymphedema After Breast Cancer Surgery Should Not Restrict Necessary Hand Surgery Interventions.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of lymphedema onset or exacerbation in patients undergoing upper extremity interventions, both nonoperative and operative, after breast cancer surgery. METHODS: The study inclusion criteria were the following: (1) prior history of breast cancer surgery or lymphedema from the cancer; (2) upper extremity intervention, ipsilateral to the breast cancer side; and (3) follow-up of at least 1 month. Patients were evaluated for demographic information, type of breast cancer procedure and hand intervention, number of lymph nodes dissected, preexisting lymphedema, exacerbation of lymphedema, and new-onset lymphedema. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients undergoing 385 hand interventions (300 injections, 85 surgeries) were reviewed. Median follow-up was 31 months (range: 1-110). Nineteen patients had preexisting lymphedema ipsilateral to the hand procedure and none experienced an exacerbation of their lymphedema. Three patients developed new-onset lymphedema ipsilateral to their hand intervention at an average follow-up of 30 months (range: 4-67). One patient had a single injection and developed lymphedema over 5 years later. One had 2 injections in the same hand on the same date and developed lymphedema 3 months later. The third patient had 2 injections in the right hand, 1 injection and 1 surgery in the left hand, and developed either lymphedema or swelling due to rheumatoid arthritis in the right hand 1 year after the injections. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have undergone breast cancer surgery can safely undergo upper extremity intervention with low risk of lymphedema exacerbation or onset.

Pressure injury prevalence and characteristics in patients with COVID-19 admitted to acute inpatient rehabilitation unit.

Objective: To investigate the incidence and severity of pressure injuries among COVID-19 patients who required acute hospitalization and subsequent acute inpatient rehabilitation (AIR). Design: Data was collected retrospectively from medical charts of COVID-19 patients who were admitted to AIR during April 2020-April 2021. Setting: Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation at a single hospital in the greater New York metropolitan area. Participants: Subjects included COVID-19 patients (N = 120) who required acute hospitalization and subsequent acute inpatient rehabilitation, of whom 39 (32.5%) had pressure injuries. Interventions: Not applicable. Main outcome measures: The incidence, location, and severity of pressure injuries in COVID-19 patients, as well as demographic and clinical characteristics of the acute hospitalization. Results: Among patients who developed pressure injuries, more patients received mechanical ventilation (59% vs. 33%, P < 0.05) and tracheostomy (67% vs. 17%, P < 0.00001). The lengths of stay were longer in both the intensive care unit (ICU) (34 vs. 15 days, P < 0.005), and in acute inpatient rehabilitation (22 vs. 17 days P < 0.05). Conclusion: Pressure injuries were more common in COVID-19 patients who had longer lengths of stay, received mechanical ventilation or tracheostomy, during acute hospitalization. This supports the use of protocols to prioritize pressure offloading in this patient population.

A rapid response for burnout among inpatient physiatrists: A survey of leaders of inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of burnout are highly prevalent among physiatrists, and prior studies have helped identify key contributors to this epidemic of burnout. Little is known about the physician stressors unique to those providing care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and what strategies such facilities have used to help mitigate burnout among inpatient physiatrists. OBJECTIVE: To identify what IRF leaders perceive as stress points contributing to burnout among inpatient rehabilitation physicians and what, if any, interventions their programs have implemented to help mitigate physician burnout. DESIGN: 10 item cross-sectional survey study of IRF physician and nonphysician leaders in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 104 physicians serving in the roles of IRF medical director, director of rehabilitation, and/or executive leadership and 19 nonphysician IRF leaders. RESULTS: Regulatory demands, late admissions, understaffing, and on-call responsibilities were the major stress points most identified as contributing to physician burnout among both the physician and nonphysician respondents. The use of advanced practice providers and hospitalists were the most common system changes reportedly used to help mitigate physician burnout. Although 57.8% of physician leaders felt late admissions were a major stress point for physicians, only 18.2% of those responding reported having implemented admission cutoff times. CONCLUSIONS: There are stressors unique to the practice of inpatient rehabilitation that are likely contributing to physiatrist burnout, including late admissions and on-call responsibilities. Many IRFs have begun to implement system changes to help mitigate burnout among inpatient physiatrists. The use of nonphysiatrist providers is a commonly reported strategy. Future studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of such a strategy on reducing symptoms of burnout among IRF physicians as well as its effect on IRF patient outcomes.

Challenges and Lessons Learned for Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation of Persons With COVID-19: Clinical Presentation, Assessment, Needs, and Services Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to present: (1) physiatric care delivery amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, (2) challenges, (3) data from the first cohort of post-COVID-19 inpatient rehabilitation facility patients, and (4) lessons learned by a research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions. DESIGN: For this clinical descriptive retrospective study, data were extracted from post-COVID-19 patient records treated at a research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation inpatient rehabilitation facilities (May 1-June 30, 2020) to characterize admission criteria, physical space, precautions, bed numbers, staffing, employee wellness, leadership, and family communication. For comparison, data from the Uniform Data System and eRehabData databases were analyzed. The research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation members discussed experiences and lessons learned. RESULTS: The COVID-19 patients (N = 320) were treated during the study period. Most patients were male, average age of 61.9 yrs, and 40.9% were White. The average acute care length of stay before inpatient rehabilitation facility admission was 24.5 days; mean length of stay at inpatient rehabilitation facilities was 15.2 days. The rehabilitation research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions reported a greater proportion of COVID-19 patients discharged to home compared with prepandemic data. Some institutions reported higher changes in functional scores during rehabilitation admission, compared with prepandemic data. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic acutely affected patient care and overall institutional operations. The research consortium of New York and New Jersey rehabilitation institutions responded dynamically to bed expansions/contractions, staff deployment, and innovations that facilitated safe and effective patient care.

Training and Practice Patterns in Cancer Rehabilitation: A Survey of Physiatrists Specializing in Oncology Care.

BACKGROUND: Cancer rehabilitation is an integral part of the continuum of care for survivors. Due to the increasing number of survivors, physiatrists commonly see cancer patients in their general practices. Essential to guiding the field is to understand the current training and practice patterns of cancer rehabilitation physicians. OBJECTIVES: To assess current trends in training and practice for cancer rehabilitation physicians, including the level of burnout among providers in this field. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive survey study. SETTING: Online survey. PARTICIPANTS: American physicians who are affiliated with the Cancer Rehabilitation Physician Consortium (CRPC) of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R). The CRPC is a group of cancer rehabilitation providers (both fellowship-trained and not fellowship-trained) with the mission of furthering cancer rehabilitation medicine through education, research, and networking. METHODS: All CRPC physicians were invited to complete a voluntary and anonymous 43-question online survey. The survey was conceived by a group of eight experts interested in providing additional information to the current literature regarding the training and practice in the cancer rehabilitation field. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Training, practice, opioid prescribing, and professional support. RESULTS: Thirty-seven of 50 physicians participated (response rate = 74%). Respondents were from various states, the three most common being New York (16%, n = 6), Texas (16%, n = 6), and Massachusetts (11%, n = 4). About 57% (n = 21) of the respondents were employed in an academic medical center and 73% (n = 27) reported their primary departmental affiliation was Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R). Approximately 78% (n = 29) credited mentorship early in training for their interest in the field. More than half (54%, n = 20) either strongly agreed or agreed that cancer rehabilitation fellowship training is necessary for graduating physiatrists who plan to treat oncology patients/survivors. National PM&R meetings were the primary source of continuing education for 86% (n = 31). Sixty-five percent (n = 24), strongly agreed or agreed that cancer rehabilitation physiatrists should know how to prescribe opioids, and 35% (n = 13) reported prescribing them when appropriate. About 54% (n = 20) rated their level of burnout as low or very low, and more than half (51%, n = 19) believed their burnout level was lower than physiatrists treating other rehabilitation populations. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer rehabilitation is a growing subspecialty in PM&R, and most physiatrists in general practice will treat many survivors-often for neurologic or musculoskeletal impairments related to cancer or its treatment. Cancer rehabilitation physicians perceive that they have relatively low levels of burnout, and early mentorship and fellowship training is beneficial. Professional conferences and mentorship are a primary source for continuing education. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A Focused Review of Safety Considerations in Cancer Rehabilitation.

Cancer and its treatments introduce various adverse effects that may affect survivors' physical, cognitive and psychological functioning. Frequently both tolerance to activity and exercise are affected as well. Rehabilitation providers should have substantive knowledge about the effect of cancer progression and common side effects associated with antineoplastic treatment to safely integrate rehabilitation interventions. Rehabilitation may mitigate loss of function and disability; however, these patients are among the most medically complex that providers treat. This report provides a focused review that synthesizes the current evidence regarding disease progression and oncology-directed treatment side effects within the context of safety considerations for rehabilitation interventions throughout the continuum of cancer care. Descriptive information regarding the evidence for precautions and contraindications is provided so that rehabilitation providers can promote a safe plan of rehabilitation care. It is incumbent upon but also challenging for rehabilitation providers to stay up to date on the many advances in cancer treatment, and there are many gaps in the literature regarding safety issues. Although further research is needed to inform care, this review provides clinicians with a framework to assess patients with the goal of safely initiating rehabilitation interventions.

Deconstructing Postmastectomy Syndrome: Implications for Physiatric Management.

Postmastectomy pain syndrome is a common sequela of breast cancer treatment that can lead to impairments and limited participation in work, recreational, and family roles. Pain can originate from multiple anatomic sites. A detailed evaluation to determine the specific cause or causes of pain will help guide the clinician to successfully manage this pain syndrome. There are many available treatments, but more evidence is needed for the efficacy of rehabilitation, pharmacologic, and nonpharmacologic therapy. There is evidence for some effective treatments to prevent this syndrome, but, here also, more research is needed.