[Contribution of physical and rehabilitation medicine to primary care medicine]. / Apport de la médecine physique et de réadaptation à la médecine de premier recours.

Physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) is an independent medical specialty, little known in Switzerland. This specialty, strongly linked to the holistic approach of the International Classification of Functioning, will be increasingly solicited by the epidemiology of disability and the imperatives of "ageing better". Its skills in prescribing human and material resources for rehabilitation provide added value in terms of loss of autonomy. Based on a biopsychosocial model, PRM has a high role to play in prevention and primary healthcare, as well as in the management and prevention of the consequences of functionally limiting diseases. There are, however, financial (pricing) and demographic (lack of representation) obstacles to effective action on behalf of the population and the healthcare system.

La médecine physique et de réadaptation (MPR), discipline indépendante, est peu connue en Suisse. Cette spécialité, liée à l'approche holistique de la classification internationale du fonctionnement, sera de plus en plus sollicitée par l'épidémiologie du handicap et les impératifs du « vieillir mieux ¼. Ses compétences de prescription des moyens humains et matériels en réadaptation apportent une plus-value sur la perte d'autonomie. Basée sur un modèle biopsychosocial, la MPR trouve sa place dans la prévention et les soins de santé primaires ainsi que dans la prise en charge et la prévention des conséquences des maladies induisant une limitation fonctionnelle. Il existe toutefois des obstacles financiers (tarification) et démographiques (insuffisance de représentation) pour une action efficace au service de la population et du système de santé.

Individual, organizational, and policy strategies to enhance the retention and a sense of belonging for health care professionals in rehabilitation medicine.

The retention of physicians and other health care professionals in rehabilitation medicine is a critical issue that affects patients' access to care and the quality of the care they receive. In the United States and globally, there are known shortages of clinicians including, but not limited to, physicians, nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language pathologists. These shortages are predicted to worsen in the future. It is known that attrition occurs in a variety of ways such as a clinician reducing work hours or effort, taking a position at another organization, leaving the field of medicine altogether, stress-related illness, and suicide. Retention efforts should focus on stay factors by creating a positive culture that supports a sense of belonging as well as addressing a myriad of push and pull factors that lead to attrition. In this commentary, we provide a roadmap that includes examples of stay strategies for individuals and organizations to adopt that are aimed at enhancing the retention of rehabilitation medicine professionals.

Outreach physiatry clinics in remote Manitoba communities: an economic cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: One in 5 people in Canada have a disability affecting daily activities, and, for rural patients, accessing lifelong physiatry care to improve function and manage symptoms requires complex and expensive travel. We compared the costs of new outreach physiatry clinics with those of conventional urban clinics in Manitoba. METHODS: Six outreach clinics were held from January 2018 to September 2019 in the remote communities of St. Theresa Point and Churchill, Manitoba. A general physiatry population was seen in these clinics, including patients with musculoskeletal and neurologic conditions seen in consultation and follow-up. We performed a societal cost-minimization analysis comparing outreach clinic costs to estimated costs of standard care at conventional outpatient clinics in Winnipeg. Outcomes of interest included direct costs to government health services and patients, and indirect opportunity cost of travel time. We calculated total costs, average cost per clinic visit and incremental costs for outreach clinics compared to conventional urban clinics. Costs were inflated to 2020 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (48 visits) were seen at the outreach clinics. The total cost of providing outreach clinics, $33 136, was 21% of the estimated cost of standard care, $158 344. When only direct costs were included, outreach clinics cost an estimated 24% of conventional care costs. The average unit cost per outreach visit was $690, compared to $3299 per conventional visit, for an incremental cost of -$2609 per outreach visit. INTERPRETATION: An outreach physiatry visit in Manitoba cost an estimated 21% of a conventional urban outpatient visit, or 24% when only direct costs were included, with costs savings largely related to travel. Outreach physiatry care in this model provides substantial cost savings for the public health care system as the primary payer, and can reduce the travel cost burden for patients who do not have public travel funding.

Expert Panel Survey to Update the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Definition of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: As part of an initiative led by the Brain Injury Special Interest Group Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) to update the 1993 ACRM definition of mild TBI, the present study aimed to characterize current expert opinion on diagnostic considerations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: An international, interdisciplinary group of clinician-scientists (N=31) with expertise in mild TBI completed the survey by invitation between May and July 2019 (100% completion rate). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratings of agreement with statements related to the diagnosis of mild TBI and ratings of the importance of various clinical signs, symptoms, test findings, and contextual factors for increasing the likelihood that the individual sustained a mild TBI, on a scale ranging from 1 ("not at all important") to 10 ("extremely important"). RESULTS: Men (n=25; 81%) and Americans (n=21; 68%) were over-represented in the sample. The survey revealed areas of expert agreement (eg, acute symptoms are diagnostically useful) and disagreement (eg, whether mild TBI with abnormal structural neuroimaging should be considered the same diagnostic entity as "concussion"). Observable signs were generally rated as more diagnostically important than subjective symptoms (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, Z=3.77; P<.001; r=0.68). Diagnostic importance ratings for individual symptoms varied widely, with some common postconcussion symptoms (eg, fatigue) rated as unhelpful (<75% of respondents indicated at least 5 out of 10 importance). Certain acute test findings (eg, cognitive and balance impairments) and contextual factors (eg, absence of confounds) were consistently rated as highly important for increasing the likelihood of a mild TBI diagnosis (≥75% of respondents indicated at least 7 out of 10). CONCLUSIONS: The expert survey findings identified several potential revisions to consider when updating the ACRM mild TBI definition, including preferentially weighing observable signs in a probabilistic framework, incorporating symptoms and test findings, and adding differential diagnosis considerations.

Beyond a Hashtag: Strategies to Move Toward a More Inclusive Physiatry Workforce.

ABSTRACT: The field of physical medicine and rehabilitation should strive for a physician workforce that is ethnically/racially, sex, and ability diverse. Considering the recent realities of disparities in health outcomes related to COVID-19 and in racial injustice in the United States, we are called to be champions for antiracism and equity. The specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation should be the leaders in fostering a culture of inclusion and pay special attention to the population of applicants who are underrepresented in medicine. The specialty needs tools to start addressing these disparities. This article aims to provide strategic and intentional evidence-based recommendations for programs to follow. Holistic review, implicit bias training, structured interviews, and targeted outreach for those underrepresented in medicine are some of the tools that will help students enter and become successful in our specialty. Furthermore, this article provides novel guidance and considerations for virtual interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Contribution of the scientific field of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine to improvements in health-related rehabilitation at all levels of the healthcare system: A discussion paper.

Rehabilitation is an important health strategy that should be implemented at all levels of the healthcare system and at all levels of care. Scientific evidence is vital to strengthen rehabilitation; therefore, research in the scientific field of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) should be implemented and linked to all levels of the healthcare system. PRM research can be categorized into 5 areas: (i) biosciences in rehabilitation; (ii) biomedical rehabilitation sciences and engineering; (iii) clinical PRM sciences; (iv) integrative rehabilitation sciences; and (v) human function-ing sciences. At the level of the healthcare system, rehabilitation can be divided into micro-, meso- and macro-levels. This paper discusses the contribution of the five above research areas to health-related rehabilitation at the different levels of the healthcare system. The contribution of PRM research can have synergistic value and facilitate improvements and implementation of scientific evidence in rehabilitation at all levels of healthcare. From a broader perspective, improved understanding of the contribution of each area of the scientific field of PRM and the priorities for the healthcare system that are set by relevant stakeholders will contribute to the advancement and rapid attainment of overall goals.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in Rhode Island during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the practice of medicine. We interviewed Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) specialist physicians providing rehabilitation services throughout Rhode Island to organize a narrative assessing the pandemic's impact on the state's rehabilitation community and the responses of its leaders. Almost half of rehabilitation providers needed to suspend their services during the initial peak of the pandemic. Most experienced reductions in the size of their practices, as well as personnel issues that contributed to burnout. All physicians used telemedicine to connect with patients. Many reported issues with accessing personal protective equipment and providing clinical opportunities for trainees. Inpatient rehabilitation policies and practices helped to maintain access for COVID-positive and negative patients, yet challenges were faced when configuring physical space to abide by CDC social distancing guidelines and providing care without patient visitors. Despite setbacks, the pandemic outlined opportunities for improvement of healthcare organization and delivery.

What Now for Rehabilitation Specialists? Coronavirus Disease 2019 Questions and Answers.

Recognizing a need for more guidance on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, members of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Editorial Board invited several clinicians with early experience managing the disease to collaborate on a document to help guide rehabilitation clinicians in the community. This consensus document is written in a "question and answer" format and contains information on the following items: common manifestations of the disease; rehabilitation recommendations in the acute hospital setting, recommendations for inpatient rehabilitation and special considerations. These suggestions are intended for use by rehabilitation clinicians in the inpatient setting caring for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. The text represents the authors' best judgment at the time it was written. However, our knowledge of COVID-19 is growing rapidly. The reader should take advantage of the most up-to-date information when making clinical decisions.

Managing the Rehabilitation Wave: Rehabilitation Services for COVID-19 Survivors.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on the provision of medical care. As the curve progresses and patients are discharged, the rehabilitation wave brings a high number of postacute COVID-19 patients suffering from physical, mental, and cognitive impairments threatening their return to normal life. The complexity and severity of disease in patients recovering from severe COVID-19 infection require an approach that is implemented as early in the recovery phase as possible, in a concerted and systematic way. To address the rehabilitation wave, we describe a spectrum of interventions that start in the intensive care unit and continue through all the appropriate levels of care. This approach requires organized rehabilitation teams including physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, rehabilitation psychologists or neuropsychologists, and physiatrists collaborating with acute medical teams. Here, we also discuss administrative factors that influence the provision of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The services that can be provided are described in detail to allow the reader to understand what services may be appropriate locally. We have been learning and adapting real time during this crisis and hope that sharing our experience facilitates the work of others as the pandemic evolves. It is our goal to help reduce the potentially long-lasting challenges faced by COVID-19 survivors.

COVID 19: Importance of Physical Rehabilitation Medicine Capacity Building.

No Abstract.

Rehabilitation Medicine Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread across the globe at a rapid rate, affecting large numbers of individuals in different countries with varying healthcare systems and infrastructure. In the United States, New York City has been the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak, and the peak impact in this region has come earlier in this location than most other parts of the country. We report our experience preparing for this pandemic in a New York City academic medical center and its regional healthcare system, the issues confronted during the rise and peak of the number of cases, and the plans for the postpeak recovery and adjustment to the new reality of providing rehabilitation in an environment where COVID-19 remains prevalent.

COVID-19 pandemic. What should Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine specialists do? A clinician's perspective.

COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly spreading all over the world, creating the risk for a healthcare collapse. While acute care and intensive care units are the main pillars of the early response to the disease, rehabilitative medicine should play an important part in allowing COVID-19 survivors to reduce disability and optimize the function of acute hospital setting. The aim of this study was to share the experience and the international perspective of different rehabilitation centers, treating COVID-19 survivors. A group of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation specialists from eleven different countries in Europe and North America have shared their clinical experience in dealing with COVID-19 survivors and how they have managed the re-organization of rehabilitation services. In our experience the most important sequelae of severe and critical forms of COVID-19 are: 1) respiratory; 2) cognitive, central and peripheral nervous system; 3) deconditioning; 4) critical illness related myopathy and neuropathy; 5) dysphagia; 6) joint stiffness and pain; 7) psychiatric. We analyze all these consequences and propose some practical treatment options, based on current evidence and clinical experience, as well as several suggestions for management of rehabilitation services and patients with suspected or confirmed infection by SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 survivors have some specific rehabilitation needs. Experience from other centers may help colleagues in organizing their services and providing better care to their patients.

Living with a disability during the pandemic. "Instant paper from the field" on rehabilitation answers to the COVID-19 emergency.

COVID-19 pandemic is creating collateral damage to persons with disabling conditions of different aetiology. The restrictions imposed to contain the spread of infection is limiting the access to many health services, including rehabilitation. It is expected that such situation will lead to long lasting negative consequences for persons with disability, increasing functional limitations in chronic conditions and hindering the recovery after acute events. The aim of this paper is to explore the impact on people with disability, reporting the contents of the sixth Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER) webinar on the COVID-19 impact on rehabilitation ("Covinars"). Seven representatives of Associations of persons affected by different disabling conditions described the difficulties they are facing during the pandemic, the initiatives undertaken to support their members and their future perspectives and expectations. The users' inputs will be helpful in planning the future phases of the emergency and improve preparedness for other emergencies.

Up to 2.2 million people experiencing disability suffer collateral damage each day of COVID-19 lockdown in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is having a great impact on health services. Patients not receiving care due to closure of outpatient services suffer a collateral damage. Our aim was to provide first data on impact of COVID-19 on people experiencing disability in Europe. METHODS: We developed an estimation from a survey and publicly available data. Thirty-eight countries have been inquired through the European Bodies of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine - the rehabilitation medical specialty. The nine questions of the survey focused on March 31st, 2020. We used the following indicators: for inpatients, acute and rehabilitative hospital beds; for outpatients, missing uniform European data, we used information from Italy, Belgium and the UK, and estimated for Europe basing on population, number of rehabilitation physicians, physiotherapists, and people with self-reported limitations. RESULTS: Thirty-five countries (92%) including 99% of the population (809.9 million) answered. Stop of admissions to rehabilitation, early discharge and reduction of activities involved 194,800 inpatients in 10 countries. Outpatient activities stopped for 87%, involving 318,000 patients per day in Italy, Belgium and the UK, leading to an estimate range of 1.3-2.2 million in Europe. Seven countries reported experiences on rehabilitation for acute COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 emergency is having a huge impact on rehabilitation of people experiencing disability. This may lead to future cumulative effects due to reduced functional outcome and consequent increased burden of care. When the emergency will fade, rehabilitation demand will probably grow due to an expected return wave of these not well treated patients, but probably also of post-COVID-19 patients' needs.

Telemedicine from research to practice during the pandemic. "Instant paper from the field" on rehabilitation answers to the COVID-19 emergency.

COVID-19 pandemic is creating collateral damage to outpatients, whose rehabilitation services have been disrupted in most of the European countries. Telemedicine has been advocated as a possible solution. This paper reports the contents of the third Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER) webinar on "experiences from the field" COVID-19 impact on rehabilitation ("Covinars"). It provides readily available, first-hand information about the application of telemedicine in rehabilitation. The experiences reported were very different for population (number and health conditions), interventions, professionals, service payment, and technologies used. Commonalities included the pushing need due to the emergency, previous experiences, and a dynamic research and innovation environment. Lights included feasibility, results, reduction of isolation, cost decrease, stimulation to innovation, satisfaction of patients, families, and professionals beyond the starting diffidence. Shadows included that telemedicine can integrate but will never substitute face-to-face rehabilitation base on the encounter among human beings; age, and technology barriers (devices absence, bad connection and human diffidence) have also been reported. Possible issues included privacy and informed consent, payments, cultural difficulties in understanding that telemedicine is a real rehabilitation intervention. There was a final agreement that this experience will be incorporated by participants in their future services: technology is ready, but the real challenge is to change PRM physicians' and patients' habits, while better specific regulation is warranted.