Soft tissue sarcoma affecting the right shoulder of a man with paraplegia from a remote traumatic spinal cord injury: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: People with spinal cord injury (SCI) are getting older due to a combination of increased life expectancy and older age at the time of injury. This trend makes it more likely for these patients to have other chronic health conditions including cancer. Inevitably relatively rare cancers such as soft tissue sarcomas (STS), which are more common with advancing age, will occur in some SCI patients. The present case represents the first report of a limb STS in a patient with chronic paraplegia from a traumatic SCI. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 50-year-old right handed male with a T6 chronic, complete SCI (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale A) who presented with a large mass involving his right shoulder musculature that was determined to be a high grade spindle cell sarcoma. The patient was followed closely by Physiatry over an approximately 6-month time course including prior to his tumor diagnosis, during the pre-radiation and pre-surgical planning phase, and then post-operatively for his acute inpatient rehabilitation. He was successfully discharged home to live alone in his accessible apartment complex. DISCUSSION: This case is the first ever reported case of a person living with a traumatic SCI who subsequently developed a limb STS. In addition to its novelty, this case illustrates how health conditions such as rare cancers are presenting more often as the chronic SCI population is getting older, which creates both unique diagnostic and management challenges for cancer rehabilitation specialists.

Exploring the scope of post-intensive care syndrome therapy and care: engagement of non-critical care providers and survivors in a second stakeholders meeting.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of survivors of critical illness are at risk for physical, cognitive, and/or mental health impairments that may persist for months or years after hospital discharge. The post-intensive care syndrome framework encompassing these multidimensional morbidities was developed at the 2010 Society of Critical Care Medicine conference on improving long-term outcomes after critical illness for survivors and their families. OBJECTIVES: To report on engagement with non-critical care providers and survivors during the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine post-intensive care syndrome stakeholder conference. Task groups developed strategies and resources required for raising awareness and education, understanding and addressing barriers to clinical practice, and identifying research gaps and resources, aimed at improving patient and family outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from 21 professional associations or health systems involved in the provision of both critical care and rehabilitation of ICU survivors in the United States and ICU survivors and family members. DESIGN: Stakeholder consensus meeting. Researchers presented summaries on morbidities for survivors and their families, whereas survivors presented their own experiences. MEETING OUTCOMES: Future steps were planned regarding 1) recognizing, preventing, and treating post-intensive care syndrome, 2) building strategies for institutional capacity to support and partner with survivors and families, and 3) understanding and addressing barriers to practice. There was recognition of the need for systematic and frequent assessment for post-intensive care syndrome across the continuum of care, including explicit "functional reconciliation" (assessing gaps between a patient's pre-ICU and current functional ability at all intra- and interinstitutional transitions of care). Future post-intensive care syndrome research topic areas were identified across the continuum of recovery: characterization of at-risk patients (including recognizing risk factors, mechanisms of injury, and optimal screening instruments), prevention and treatment interventions, and outcomes research for patients and families. CONCLUSIONS: Raising awareness of post-intensive care syndrome for the public and both critical care and non-critical care clinicians will inform a more coordinated approach to treatment and support during recovery after critical illness. Continued conceptual development and engagement with additional stakeholders is required.

Oncologists' and physiatrists' attitudes regarding rehabilitation for patients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences in attitude and practice between physiatrists and oncologists exist that may be barriers to patients with advanced cancer receiving rehabilitation services. DESIGN: A survey of medical oncologists' and rehabilitation physicians' self-reported referral attitudes and behaviors regarding rehabilitation services for patients with advanced cancer defined as the prognosis expected to lead to death in 6-12 months. After a prenotification letter, surveys were mailed to a systematically drawn sample. A final survey population of 591 medical oncologists and 464 rehabilitation physicians was created from prenotification and survey mailings. PARTICIPANTS: Practicing physiatrists and oncologists listed in the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and American Society of Clinical Oncology membership directories. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Responses to survey questions by physiatrists and oncologists. RESULTS: From 820 surveys mailed, 395 surveys were returned, for a total response rate of 46%. When asked about how a terminal prognosis of patients with advanced cancer affects rehabilitation referral and acceptance, only 8% of medical oncologists said that they would refer a patient with advanced cancer to rehabilitation services regardless of estimated prognosis, whereas 35% of rehabilitation physicians said that they would accept a patient with advanced cancer for rehabilitation services regardless of prognosis. Approximately 70% of both medical oncologists and rehabilitation physicians thought it to be very important that patients with advanced cancer who are referred and accepted into rehabilitation services adequately understand their prognosis before beginning a rehabilitation program. However, only 39% of rehabilitation physicians, compared with 61% of medical oncologists, believed that patients with advanced cancer and in rehabilitation services adequately understood their prognosis (P = .004). As surveyed, a do not resuscitate order had no effect on a medical oncologist's willingness to refer a patient with advanced cancer to rehabilitation services and had minimal effect on a rehabilitation physician's willingness to accept a patient with advanced cancer. CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists and rehabilitation physicians share many similar attitudes with regard to the referral and acceptance of patients with advanced cancer for rehabilitation services. However, medical oncologists see prognosis as a more significant barrier to rehabilitation services than do rehabilitation physicians. Rehabilitation physicians are more likely to believe that the patients with advanced cancer for whom they care do not adequately understand their prognosis.

Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders' conference.

BACKGROUND: Millions of patients are discharged from intensive care units annually. These intensive care survivors and their families frequently report a wide range of impairments in their health status which may last for months and years after hospital discharge. OBJECTIVES: To report on a 2-day Society of Critical Care Medicine conference aimed at improving the long-term outcomes after critical illness for patients and their families. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one invited stakeholders participated in the conference. Stakeholders represented key professional organizations and groups, predominantly from North America, which are involved in the care of intensive care survivors after hospital discharge. DESIGN: Invited experts and Society of Critical Care Medicine members presented a summary of existing data regarding the potential long-term physical, cognitive and mental health problems after intensive care and the results from studies of postintensive care unit interventions to address these problems. Stakeholders provided reactions, perspectives, concerns and strategies aimed at improving care and mitigating these long-term health problems. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three major themes emerged from the conference regarding: (1) raising awareness and education, (2) understanding and addressing barriers to practice, and (3) identifying research gaps and resources. Postintensive care syndrome was agreed upon as the recommended term to describe new or worsening problems in physical, cognitive, or mental health status arising after a critical illness and persisting beyond acute care hospitalization. The term could be applied to either a survivor or family member. CONCLUSIONS: Improving care for intensive care survivors and their families requires collaboration between practitioners and researchers in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Strategies were developed to address the major themes arising from the conference to improve outcomes for survivors and families.

The future of cancer rehabilitation: emerging subspecialty.

In this article, the subject of the future for the field of cancer rehabilitation is embarked upon. Future practice innovation models must involve the appropriate and comprehensive evaluation of cancer patients' rehabilitation needs using better functional measurement tools, as well as the forging of new partnerships through the presence and initiation of physiatric coordinated rehabilitation teams, particularly during the acute phases of treatment. Partnering rehabilitation teams closely with oncology colleagues during surveillance years, through the development of outpatient survivorship clinics for diagnosis and treatment of many of cancer patients' ongoing symptoms and functional limitations, will allow for more comprehensive and coordinated follow-up cancer care. Integration of rehabilitation into palliative care and continued efforts to increase oncology's awareness and acceptance of rehabilitation benefits and expertise are needed. Future education models for medical school, residency, and postresidency training are discussed, as are future research goals to help in placing cancer rehabilitation at the forefront of acute cancer care and survivorship care.