Follow the trail: Using insights from the growth of palliative care to propose a roadmap for cancer rehabilitation.

Despite research explicating the benefits of cancer rehabilitation interventions to optimize physical, social, emotional, and vocational functioning, many reports document low rates of referral to and uptake of rehabilitation in oncology. Cancer rehabilitation clinicians, researchers, and policy makers could learn from the multidisciplinary specialty of palliative care, which has benefited from a growth strategy and has garnered national recognition as an important and necessary aspect of oncology care. The purpose of this article is to explore the actions that have increased the uptake and integration of palliative care to yield insights and multimodal strategies for the development and growth of cancer rehabilitation. After examining the history of palliative care and its growth, the authors highlight 5 key strategies that may benefit the field of cancer rehabilitation: 1) stimulating the science in specific gap areas; 2) creating clinical practice guidelines; 3) building clinical capacity; 4) ascertaining and responding to public opinion; and 5) advocating for public policy change. Coordinated and simultaneous advances on these 5 strategies may catalyze the growth, utilization, and effectiveness of patient screening, timely referrals, and delivery of appropriate cancer rehabilitation care that reduces disability and improves quality of life for cancer survivors who need these services.

Most National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center Websites Do Not Provide Survivors with Information About Cancer Rehabilitation Services.

This study is the first to evaluate the existence and quality of patient-related cancer rehabilitation content on the websites of National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Centers. In 2016, a team of cancer rehabilitation physicians (physiatrists) conducted an analysis of the patient-related rehabilitation content on the websites of all NCI-Designated Cancer Centers that provide clinical care (N = 62 of 69). The main outcome measures included qualitative rating of the ease of locating descriptions of cancer rehabilitation services on each website, followed by quantitative rating of the quality of the cancer rehabilitation descriptions found. More than 90% of NCI-Designated Cancer Centers providing clinical care did not have an easily identifiable patient-focused description of or link to cancer rehabilitation services on their website. Use of a website's search box and predetermined terms yielded an additional 13 descriptions (21%). Therefore, designers of nearly 70% of the websites evaluated overlooked an opportunity to present a description of cancer rehabilitation services. Moreover, only 8% of the websites included accurate and detailed information that referenced four core rehabilitation services (physiatry and physical, occupational and speech therapy). Further research is needed to confirm the presence of cancer rehabilitation services and evaluate access to these types of services at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers providing clinical care.

Toward a National Initiative in Cancer Rehabilitation: Recommendations From a Subject Matter Expert Group.

The health care delivery system in the United States is challenged to meet the needs of a growing population of cancer survivors. A pressing need is to optimize overall function and reduce disability in these individuals. Functional impairments and disability affect most patients during and after disease treatment. Rehabilitation health care providers can diagnose and treat patients' physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments in an effort to maintain or restore function, reduce symptom burden, maximize independence and improve quality of life in this medically complex population. However, few care delivery models integrate comprehensive cancer rehabilitation services into the oncology care continuum. The Rehabilitation Medicine Department of the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health with support from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research convened a subject matter expert group to review current literature and practice patterns, identify opportunities and gaps regarding cancer rehabilitation and its support of oncology care, and make recommendations for future efforts that promote quality cancer rehabilitation care. The recommendations suggest stronger efforts toward integrating cancer rehabilitation care models into oncology care from the point of diagnosis, incorporating evidence-based rehabilitation clinical assessment tools, and including rehabilitation professionals in shared decision-making in order to provide comprehensive cancer care and maximize the functional capabilities of cancer survivors. These recommendations aim to enable future collaborations among a variety of stakeholders to improve the delivery of high-quality cancer care.

Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care: critical components in the delivery of high-quality oncology services.

Palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are important collaborative referral sources for each other who can work together to improve the lives of cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers by improving both quality of care and quality of life. Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care involve the delivery of important but underutilized medical services to oncology patients by interdisciplinary teams. These subspecialties are similar in many respects, including their focus on improving cancer-related symptoms or cancer treatment-related side effects, improving health-related quality of life, lessening caregiver burden, and valuing patient-centered care and shared decision-making. They also aim to improve healthcare efficiencies and minimize costs by means such as reducing hospital lengths of stay and unanticipated readmissions. Although their goals are often aligned, different specialized skills and approaches are used in the delivery of care. For example, while each specialty prioritizes goal-concordant care through identification of patient and family preferences and values, palliative care teams typically focus extensively on using patient and family communication to determine their goals of care, while also tending to comfort issues such as symptom management and spiritual concerns. Rehabilitation clinicians may tend to focus more specifically on functional issues such as identifying and treating deficits in physical, psychological, or cognitive impairments and any resulting disability and negative impact on quality of life. Additionally, although palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are trained to diagnose and treat medically complex patients, rehabilitation clinicians also treat many patients with a single impairment and a low symptom burden. In these cases, the goal is often cure of the underlying neurologic or musculoskeletal condition. This report defines and describes cancer rehabilitation and palliative care, delineates their respective roles in comprehensive oncology care, and highlights how these services can contribute complementary components of essential quality care. An understanding of how cancer rehabilitation and palliative care are aligned in goal setting, but distinct in approach may help facilitate earlier integration of both into the oncology care continuum-supporting efforts to improve physical, psychological, cognitive, functional, and quality of life outcomes in patients and survivors.

Inpatient rehabilitation performance of patients with paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the functional improvement of rehabilitation inpatients with paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Referral-based hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Cancer rehabilitation inpatients (N=7) admitted to 3 different cancer centers with a diagnosis of paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration. INTERVENTION: Medical records were retrospectively analyzed for demographic, laboratory, medical, and functional data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: FIM. RESULTS: All 7 patients were white women (median age, 62y). Primary cancers included ovarian carcinoma (n=2), small cell lung cancer (n=2), uterine carcinoma (n=2), and invasive ductal breast carcinoma (n=1). Mean admission total FIM score was 61±23.97. Mean discharge total FIM score was 73.6±29.35. The mean change in total FIM score was 12.6 (P=.0018). The mean length of rehabilitation stay was 17.1 days. The mean total FIM efficiency was .73. Of the 7 patients, 5 (71%) were discharged home, 1 (14%) was discharged to a nursing home, and 1 (14%) was transferred to the primary acute care service. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate the functional performance of a group of rehabilitation inpatients with paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration. Despite the poor neurologic prognosis associated with this syndrome, these patients made significant functional improvements in inpatient rehabilitation. When appropriate, inpatient rehabilitation should be considered. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed.

Roadmap for Connecting Cancer Rehabilitation With Survivorship to Improve Patient Outcomes and Clinical Efficiency.

ABSTRACT: An evolved model of comprehensive cancer care is needed that begins at cancer diagnosis to proactively manage cancer treatment toxicities and optimize patient health, function, and well-being. Building new care models requires connecting oncology, primary care, and specialized clinicians from many disciplines including cancer rehabilitation. Having a vision for an evolved standard of comprehensive cancer care is a requirement, but it is not enough to bring an innovative clinical program to life and sustain it over the long term. To inform the development of new clinical programs, two example programs are presented that successfully integrate cancer rehabilitation services along with details of a three-step process these programs used to facilitate their success and build robust business models that ensure their sustainability. Following the roadmap for growth presented here, gaining input from stakeholders and ensuring their buy-in, leveraging existing programmatic priorities, as well as developing a strategic growth plan can help clinical innovators ensure that new programs anticipate and continually meet the needs of oncology, primary care, subspecialty care, and programs, while addressing the business needs of administrators and improving the experience for patients.

Rehabilitation and treatment of spinal cord tumors.

CONTEXT: Due to advances in acute oncological treatment, patients with spinal cord tumors exhibit improved survival. However, these patients have not received the full benefits of rehabilitation services to address their neurological deficits and rehabilitation goals. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the epidemiology and pathophysiology of spinal cord tumors, address methods of acute oncological management, review treatment for neurological sequelae, and understand the implications as they relate to rehabilitation. METHODS: An extensive literature review was performed regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, acute oncological management, neurological sequelae, and rehabilitation for patients with spinal cord tumors. Databases used included pubmed.gov and OVID, as well as individual journal and textbook articles. RESULTS: Access to treatment should be increased given improved survival and functional deficits for patients with spinal cord tumors. Individuals can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation programs, in spite of increased medical co-morbidity and neurological deficits. Specific areas of improvement include functionality, mood, quality of life, and survival. Adjustments to treatment plans must incorporate medical complications from cancer and its treatment, perceived quality of life, and prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with spinal cord tumors who participate in rehabilitation programs show general improvement in function, mood, quality of life, and survival. Adaptations to care plans should be made to accommodate medical co-morbidities from cancer and its treatment, patient perceptions, and prognosis.

Palliative Care Education in US Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Programs: Current Practices, Perceived Needs, and Barriers.

Background: Physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) clinicians commonly care for patients with serious illness/injury and would benefit from primary palliative care (PC) training. Objective: To assess current practices, attitudes, and barriers toward PC education among U.S. PM&R residencies. Design: This is a cross-sectional study utilizing an electronic 23-question survey. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were program leaders from U.S. PM&R residency programs. Results: Twenty-one programs responded (23% response). Only 14 (67%) offered PC education through lectures, elective rotations, or self-directed reading. Pain management, communication, and nonpain symptom management were identified as the most important PC domains for residents. Nineteen respondents (91%) felt residents would benefit from more PC education, but only five (24%) reported undergoing curricular change. Lack of faculty availability/expertise and teaching time were the most endorsed barriers. Conclusion: PC education is heterogeneous across PM&R programs despite its perceived value. PC and PM&R educators can collaborate to build faculty expertise and integrate PC principles into existing curricula.

Swallowing dysfunction after minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing oesophagectomy frequently experience malnutrition, which in combination with the catabolic effects of surgery can result in loss of muscle mass and function. Safe swallowing requires preservation of muscle mass. Swallowing dysfunction puts postoperative patients at risk for aspiration and pneumonia. Modified Barium Swallow Study (MBSS) enables assessment of postoperative swallowing impairments. The current study assessed incidence and risk factors associated with swallowing dysfunction and restricted diet at discharge in patients after oesophagectomy in a high-volume surgical centre. METHODS: Patients with an MBSS after oesophagectomy were identified between March 2015 to April 2020 at a high-volume surgical centre. Swallowing was quantitatively evaluated on MBSS with the Rosenbek Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Muscle loss was evaluated clinically with preoperative hand grip strength (HGS). Univariable and multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: 129 patients (87% male; median age 66 years) underwent oesophagectomy with postoperative MBSS. Univariate analysis revealed older age, preoperative feeding tube, lower preoperative HGS and discharge to non-home were associated with aspiration or penetration on MBSS. Age and preoperative feeding tube remained as independent predictors in the multivariable analysis. Both univariate and multivariable analyses revealed increased age and preoperative feeding tube were associated with diet restrictions at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Swallowing dysfunction after oesophagectomy is correlated with increased age and need for preoperative enteral feeding tube placement. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between muscle loss and aspiration with the goal of enabling preoperative physiological optimisation and patient selection.

The Who, What, Why, When, Where, and How of Team-Based Interdisciplinary Cancer Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To review the key components necessary for successful application of rehabilitation principles to oncology survivors. DATA SOURCES: Validated databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation is an essential component of cancer care that addresses functional needs for oncology survivors and is best accomplished via an interdisciplinary team. Interdisciplinary care, provided by nursing, physiatry, rehabilitation therapy, and exercise physiology, are critical components for comprehensive intervention. Challenges exist in implementing services, but opportunity also exists within the post-acute care sector. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses play an important role in the screening, assessment, and treatment of cancer-related functional impairments.

Consensus-Building efforts to identify best tools for screening and assessment for supportive services in oncology.

Purpose: To build consensus around an optimal patient-reported outcome measure of cancer symptoms and patient needs to facilitate patient-provider communication and trigger referrals to supportive services.Methods and materials: The Grid-Enabled Measures platform was used to crowdsource and facilitate collaboration to achieve consensus. Respondents were invited to nominate and independently rate the usefulness of measures that: (1) have been actively used at a healthcare institution, (2) have a multiple choice or yes/no type format, (3) are applicable to adults with cancer, (4) are patient-reported, and 5) have psychometric data if possible. Discussion boards within the GEM workspace allowed respondents to identify barriers to implementing patient assessment and referral systems.Results: 166 individuals from various disciplines from 25 organizations participated. Six instruments were nominated, and 553 rating surveys were submitted. The three most highly-rated overall instruments were the Distress Thermometer, the James Supportive Case Screening, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Participants noted that wide-scale implementation of this process requires both identifying problems and providing clinicians with algorithms to facilitate appropriate referrals.Conclusions: Consensus reported three most highly-related measures as optimal for comprehensive screening and identification for referral by assessing multiple domains of functioning and quality of life.Implications for RehabilitationGaining consensus on the best patient reported outcome measures is an important step towards improving access to cancer rehabilitation services.A consensus agreed on several measures to use for cancer rehabilitation screening. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, National Comprehensive Cancer. Network Distress Thermometer and the James Instrument.The selected measures do not put undue burden on clinicians and patients.

Inpatient Care for the Cancer Survivor: Opportunities to Develop and Deliver Standards for Care.

Cancer continues to evolve from a terminal diagnosis to a chronic medical condition. With improved survivorship rates, opportunities exist to deliver rehabilitation care throughout the oncology continuum. By definition, inpatient rehabilitation is generally considered postacute care and is provided either in inpatient rehabilitation facilities, in skilled nursing facilities, or in long-term care hospitals. Each institution is subject to specific regulations and legislation that help define appropriateness for admission based on diagnosis, medical necessity, and functional need. However, these criteria may present barriers to access care for the oncology survivor. As the healthcare landscape changes, and reimbursement structures shift from fee-for-service to those that emphasize effectiveness and efficiency in care, inpatient rehabilitation has a unique opportunity to improve value in terms of outcomes and cost. With the implementation of the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act, standardization of measures throughout postacute care may allow for a more consistent approach to delivery of inpatient rehabilitation care. Further work will be necessary to define the parameters by which oncology survivors should be gauged in this framework.

A Guide to Inpatient Cancer Rehabilitation: Focusing on Patient Selection and Evidence-Based Outcomes.

Cancer inpatients commonly suffer from impairments that can prohibit safe discharge home from the acute care inpatient medical service and thus require transfer to a postacute inpatient rehabilitation facility. It has been demonstrated in multiple studies that cancer rehabilitation inpatients are able to make statistically significant functional improvements and at a similar pace as their noncancer counterparts. Medical fragility and reimbursement regulations are concerns that affect acceptance and triage of cancer rehabilitation inpatients. Strategies to rehabilitate these challenging patients include considering risk factors for medical complications, consult-based inpatient rehabilitation, and improved communication and coordination with oncology teams.

Palliative Care and Physiatry in the Oncology Care Spectrum: An Opportunity for Distinct and Collaborative Approaches.

As cancer evolves from a terminal illness to a chronic medical condition, so too does the view of clinical services. Palliative care and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) will increase in acceptance because they provide a valuable resource. The overarching theme is improving cancer-related symptoms or treatment-related side effects, improving patient health-related quality of life, lessening caregiver burden, and valuing patient-centered care and shared decision making. Managing symptom burden may improve therapy participation/performance. PM&R and palliative care departments are well-equipped to develop patient-centered care protocols, and could play an important role in developing a universal measure of performance status.

Cancer rehabilitation education during physical medicine and rehabilitation residency: preliminary data regarding the quality and quantity of experiences.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gather descriptive information from residency program directors regarding characteristics of the education and experiences of resident physicians in oncology rehabilitation. DESIGN: The program directors responded to a 28-question survey. Information collected included general descriptors of residency programs, oncology rehabilitation services lines within the institution, educational and clinical opportunities for trainees, and perceptions of quality for oncology experiences. RESULTS: Thirty-eight responses, with a response rate of 48%, were recorded. Thirty-two percent of the programs did not have any dedicated faculty for cancer rehabilitation. A majority of the respondents felt that cancer rehabilitation should be an important component of the curriculum. Sixty-six percent of the programs admitted only one to two cancer diagnoses to their inpatient units per week, and 26% had outpatient clinics that focused specifically on rehabilitation needs for oncology patients. A majority of the programs felt that experiences were only average and that residents do not receive adequate exposure to cancer rehabilitation during their training. CONCLUSIONS: Although cancer rehabilitation is considered an important area of education, quality and quantity of experiences may be improved. Several opportunities may exist to improve such exposure in anticipation of serving the functional needs for a growing population of cancer survivors.