The Experts below are selected from a list of 663 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Eduardo Bruera - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
frequency and characteristics of recommendations from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings
Pm&r, 2019Co-Authors: Jegy M Tennison, An Ngohuang, Seyedeh Dibaj, Anissa E Hill, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Abstract Background Ambulatory cancer rehabilitation programs vary widely in the types of services offered, and there is a lack of consistency with respect to the coordination of rehabilitation with oncologic treatment plans. There are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings, and the types and characteristics of recommendations that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been reported. Objective To identify the frequency and characteristics of different types of recommendations that were derived through monthly interdisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation team meetings involving Physiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Design Case series—descriptive study. Setting Quaternary cancer center. Participants Outpatient rehabilitation cancer patients discussed during consecutive monthly team meetings. Main Outcome Measure(s) Frequency and characteristics of recommendations. Results Over a 7-month period, there were 57 potential patients to be discussed, and 42 patients were discussed. Among the 42 patients, 30 received recommendations, which yields 71% of patients receiving at least 1 recommendation. Some patients required repeated discussions in different months; thus, a total of 71 discussions occurred and resulted in 51 recommendations. Out of the 71 discussions, 41 (58%) discussions resulted in recommendations such as coordination of care in 19 (37%) cases, physiatry clinic follow-up in 9 cases (18%), oncology clinic follow-up in 7 cases (14%), and orders for referrals to other health professionals were placed in 5 cases (10%). Thirty discussions (42%) did not result in any recommendations, with the most common reason being stable or having improved functional status. Conclusions In contrast to acute inpatient rehabilitation interdisciplinary weekly team meetings required by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings. Thus, the types and characteristics of recommendations that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been previously reported. Regularly scheduled outpatient interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation team meetings increase communication among rehabilitation specialists to identify outpatients experiencing barriers to therapy progress, provide recommendations to address those barriers, and reassess rehabilitation goals previously established. Level of Evidence IV
-
frequency and characteristics of interventions from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 2018Co-Authors: Jegy M Tennison, An Ngohuang, Seyedeh Dibaj, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Introduction/Background Ambulatory cancer rehabilitation programs vary widely in the types of services offered, and there is a lack of consistency with respect to the coordination of rehabilitation with oncologic treatment plans. There are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings, and the types and characteristics of interventions that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been reported. The aims are as follows: –identify the frequency and characteristics of interventions derived through monthly interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation team meetings involving Physiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists; –compare the clinical characteristics of patients who did and did not receive interventions. Material and method This is a retrospective study of consecutive monthly outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings with Physiatrists’ participation. Results Over a 7-month period, there were 57 potential patients to be discussed and 42 patients were discussed. Among the 42 patients, 12 of them did not receive any interventions and 30 did, which yields 71% of patient receiving at least one intervention. Some patients required repeated discussions in different months; thus, a total of 71 discussions occurred and resulted in 51 interventions. Of the 71 discussions, 41 (58%) resulted in interventions and the most common intervention was coordination of care (37%). Thirty discussions (42%) did not result in any interventions, with the most common reason being stable or having improved functional status. Conclusion Regularly scheduled outpatient interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation team meetings increase communication among rehabilitation specialists to identify outpatients experiencing barriers to therapy progress, provide interventions to address those barriers, and reassess rehabilitation goals previously established.
-
comparison of postoperative rehabilitation in cancer patients undergoing internal and external hemipelvectomy
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2011Co-Authors: Ying Guo, Lynn J Palmer, Jeanine Hanohano, Christina Cote, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Abstract Guo Y, Fu J, Palmer JL, Hanohano J, Cote C, Bruera E. Comparison of postoperative rehabilitation in cancer patients undergoing internal and external hemipelvectomy. Objective To compare postoperative rehabilitation, functional outcome, and pain management in cancer patients who underwent an internal hemipelvectomy versus an external hemipelvectomy. Design Retrospective study. Setting Tertiary cancer center. Participants Patients (N=60) who underwent a hemipelvectomy between February 1996 and November 2005 were included in this study (30 internal hemipelvectomy patients and 30 external hemipelvectomy patients). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Hospital and rehabilitation length of stay (LOS), percentage of Physiatrist consultation and inpatient rehabilitation, functional status of transfers and ambulation, and pain medication utilization. Results The rate of Physiatrist consultation and acute rehabilitation admission were 15 (50%) of 30 and 13 (43%) of 30 for internal hemipelvectomy patients, and 16 (53%) of 30 and 16 (53%) of 30 for external hemipelvectomy patients. Median hospital LOS for external hemipelvectomy patients (37d) was significantly longer than for internal hemipelvectomy patients (19d) ( P =0.004); median rehabilitation LOS was similar in both groups (20d for external hemipelvectomy patients versus 22 for internal hemipelvectomy patients; P =0.83). On discharge, 14 (47%) of 30 internal hemipelvectomy patients could ambulate without assistance, whereas only 5 (17%) of 30 external hemipelvectomy patients could do so ( P =0.013). The median morphine equivalent daily dose at discharge for external hemipelvectomy patients (150mg) was significantly higher than that for internal hemipelvectomy patients (45mg) ( P =0.032). Conclusions A similar percentage of internal hemipelvectomy and external hemipelvectomy patients were admitted to inpatient rehabilitation. External hemipelvectomy patients had longer hospital LOS, less favorable functional outcome, and required more intense treatment for pain.
Jegy M Tennison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
frequency and characteristics of recommendations from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings
Pm&r, 2019Co-Authors: Jegy M Tennison, An Ngohuang, Seyedeh Dibaj, Anissa E Hill, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Abstract Background Ambulatory cancer rehabilitation programs vary widely in the types of services offered, and there is a lack of consistency with respect to the coordination of rehabilitation with oncologic treatment plans. There are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings, and the types and characteristics of recommendations that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been reported. Objective To identify the frequency and characteristics of different types of recommendations that were derived through monthly interdisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation team meetings involving Physiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Design Case series—descriptive study. Setting Quaternary cancer center. Participants Outpatient rehabilitation cancer patients discussed during consecutive monthly team meetings. Main Outcome Measure(s) Frequency and characteristics of recommendations. Results Over a 7-month period, there were 57 potential patients to be discussed, and 42 patients were discussed. Among the 42 patients, 30 received recommendations, which yields 71% of patients receiving at least 1 recommendation. Some patients required repeated discussions in different months; thus, a total of 71 discussions occurred and resulted in 51 recommendations. Out of the 71 discussions, 41 (58%) discussions resulted in recommendations such as coordination of care in 19 (37%) cases, physiatry clinic follow-up in 9 cases (18%), oncology clinic follow-up in 7 cases (14%), and orders for referrals to other health professionals were placed in 5 cases (10%). Thirty discussions (42%) did not result in any recommendations, with the most common reason being stable or having improved functional status. Conclusions In contrast to acute inpatient rehabilitation interdisciplinary weekly team meetings required by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings. Thus, the types and characteristics of recommendations that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been previously reported. Regularly scheduled outpatient interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation team meetings increase communication among rehabilitation specialists to identify outpatients experiencing barriers to therapy progress, provide recommendations to address those barriers, and reassess rehabilitation goals previously established. Level of Evidence IV
-
frequency and characteristics of interventions from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 2018Co-Authors: Jegy M Tennison, An Ngohuang, Seyedeh Dibaj, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Introduction/Background Ambulatory cancer rehabilitation programs vary widely in the types of services offered, and there is a lack of consistency with respect to the coordination of rehabilitation with oncologic treatment plans. There are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings, and the types and characteristics of interventions that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been reported. The aims are as follows: –identify the frequency and characteristics of interventions derived through monthly interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation team meetings involving Physiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists; –compare the clinical characteristics of patients who did and did not receive interventions. Material and method This is a retrospective study of consecutive monthly outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings with Physiatrists’ participation. Results Over a 7-month period, there were 57 potential patients to be discussed and 42 patients were discussed. Among the 42 patients, 12 of them did not receive any interventions and 30 did, which yields 71% of patient receiving at least one intervention. Some patients required repeated discussions in different months; thus, a total of 71 discussions occurred and resulted in 51 interventions. Of the 71 discussions, 41 (58%) resulted in interventions and the most common intervention was coordination of care (37%). Thirty discussions (42%) did not result in any interventions, with the most common reason being stable or having improved functional status. Conclusion Regularly scheduled outpatient interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation team meetings increase communication among rehabilitation specialists to identify outpatients experiencing barriers to therapy progress, provide interventions to address those barriers, and reassess rehabilitation goals previously established.
Lawrence R Robinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
understanding the role of the Physiatrist and how to improve the continuum of care for trauma patients a qualitative study
Disability and Rehabilitation, 2021Co-Authors: Sander L Hitzig, Lesley Gotlib Conn, Sara J T Guilcher, Stephanie R Cimino, Lawrence R RobinsonAbstract:Purpose: Transitions across care settings can be stressful for trauma patients, and when poorly executed, can lead to poor outcomes. Early physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR ii. patient education and expectations for rehab); (2) clinical-team considerations (i. physiatry role clarity and role limitations; ii. access and accuracy of information; iii. departmental silos); and (3) system-level considerations (i. occupancy and discharge pressures; ii. inter-facility coordination and patient flow).Conclusions: Although both acute and rehabilitation care staff find early PM&R consults as being important to support the recovery of trauma patients, there is a need for greater role clarity of the Physiatrist across settings and a more refined implementation approach to better meet the communication needs of clinical staff. Implications for RehabilitationEarly physical medicine and rehabilitation consults are seen by acute care and rehabilitation front-line staff as valuable for optimizing the continuum of trauma care.There is a lack of clarity on the role of Physiatrists among acute care and rehabilitation clinical staff.The Physiatrist plays an important role to help prepare trauma patients for rehabilitation. For patients with complex physical and/or mental health challenges, the Physiatrist can also serve as an advocate for access to rehabilitation services.
-
physiatry reviews for evidence in practice prep second order peer reviews of clinically relevant articles for the Physiatrist
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 2015Co-Authors: Dinesh Kumbhare, Lawrence R RobinsonAbstract:The busy clinically active Physiatrist who wishes to practice evidence-based medicine has a daunting challenge to keep up to date with the significant amount of new information that is developing and available across the wide spectrum of medical literature. Accordingly, the authors have developed a method to survey the applicable medical literature to identify pertinent and clinically relevant articles. These articles are then critically appraised and presented in a standard format with clinically applicable conclusions. The authors will be presenting these reviews in future issues of the American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation.
An Ngohuang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
frequency and characteristics of recommendations from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings
Pm&r, 2019Co-Authors: Jegy M Tennison, An Ngohuang, Seyedeh Dibaj, Anissa E Hill, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Abstract Background Ambulatory cancer rehabilitation programs vary widely in the types of services offered, and there is a lack of consistency with respect to the coordination of rehabilitation with oncologic treatment plans. There are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings, and the types and characteristics of recommendations that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been reported. Objective To identify the frequency and characteristics of different types of recommendations that were derived through monthly interdisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation team meetings involving Physiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Design Case series—descriptive study. Setting Quaternary cancer center. Participants Outpatient rehabilitation cancer patients discussed during consecutive monthly team meetings. Main Outcome Measure(s) Frequency and characteristics of recommendations. Results Over a 7-month period, there were 57 potential patients to be discussed, and 42 patients were discussed. Among the 42 patients, 30 received recommendations, which yields 71% of patients receiving at least 1 recommendation. Some patients required repeated discussions in different months; thus, a total of 71 discussions occurred and resulted in 51 recommendations. Out of the 71 discussions, 41 (58%) discussions resulted in recommendations such as coordination of care in 19 (37%) cases, physiatry clinic follow-up in 9 cases (18%), oncology clinic follow-up in 7 cases (14%), and orders for referrals to other health professionals were placed in 5 cases (10%). Thirty discussions (42%) did not result in any recommendations, with the most common reason being stable or having improved functional status. Conclusions In contrast to acute inpatient rehabilitation interdisciplinary weekly team meetings required by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings. Thus, the types and characteristics of recommendations that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been previously reported. Regularly scheduled outpatient interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation team meetings increase communication among rehabilitation specialists to identify outpatients experiencing barriers to therapy progress, provide recommendations to address those barriers, and reassess rehabilitation goals previously established. Level of Evidence IV
-
frequency and characteristics of interventions from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 2018Co-Authors: Jegy M Tennison, An Ngohuang, Seyedeh Dibaj, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Introduction/Background Ambulatory cancer rehabilitation programs vary widely in the types of services offered, and there is a lack of consistency with respect to the coordination of rehabilitation with oncologic treatment plans. There are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings, and the types and characteristics of interventions that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been reported. The aims are as follows: –identify the frequency and characteristics of interventions derived through monthly interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation team meetings involving Physiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists; –compare the clinical characteristics of patients who did and did not receive interventions. Material and method This is a retrospective study of consecutive monthly outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings with Physiatrists’ participation. Results Over a 7-month period, there were 57 potential patients to be discussed and 42 patients were discussed. Among the 42 patients, 12 of them did not receive any interventions and 30 did, which yields 71% of patient receiving at least one intervention. Some patients required repeated discussions in different months; thus, a total of 71 discussions occurred and resulted in 51 interventions. Of the 71 discussions, 41 (58%) resulted in interventions and the most common intervention was coordination of care (37%). Thirty discussions (42%) did not result in any interventions, with the most common reason being stable or having improved functional status. Conclusion Regularly scheduled outpatient interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation team meetings increase communication among rehabilitation specialists to identify outpatients experiencing barriers to therapy progress, provide interventions to address those barriers, and reassess rehabilitation goals previously established.
Seyedeh Dibaj - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
frequency and characteristics of recommendations from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings
Pm&r, 2019Co-Authors: Jegy M Tennison, An Ngohuang, Seyedeh Dibaj, Anissa E Hill, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Abstract Background Ambulatory cancer rehabilitation programs vary widely in the types of services offered, and there is a lack of consistency with respect to the coordination of rehabilitation with oncologic treatment plans. There are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings, and the types and characteristics of recommendations that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been reported. Objective To identify the frequency and characteristics of different types of recommendations that were derived through monthly interdisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation team meetings involving Physiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Design Case series—descriptive study. Setting Quaternary cancer center. Participants Outpatient rehabilitation cancer patients discussed during consecutive monthly team meetings. Main Outcome Measure(s) Frequency and characteristics of recommendations. Results Over a 7-month period, there were 57 potential patients to be discussed, and 42 patients were discussed. Among the 42 patients, 30 received recommendations, which yields 71% of patients receiving at least 1 recommendation. Some patients required repeated discussions in different months; thus, a total of 71 discussions occurred and resulted in 51 recommendations. Out of the 71 discussions, 41 (58%) discussions resulted in recommendations such as coordination of care in 19 (37%) cases, physiatry clinic follow-up in 9 cases (18%), oncology clinic follow-up in 7 cases (14%), and orders for referrals to other health professionals were placed in 5 cases (10%). Thirty discussions (42%) did not result in any recommendations, with the most common reason being stable or having improved functional status. Conclusions In contrast to acute inpatient rehabilitation interdisciplinary weekly team meetings required by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings. Thus, the types and characteristics of recommendations that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been previously reported. Regularly scheduled outpatient interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation team meetings increase communication among rehabilitation specialists to identify outpatients experiencing barriers to therapy progress, provide recommendations to address those barriers, and reassess rehabilitation goals previously established. Level of Evidence IV
-
frequency and characteristics of interventions from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 2018Co-Authors: Jegy M Tennison, An Ngohuang, Seyedeh Dibaj, Eduardo BrueraAbstract:Introduction/Background Ambulatory cancer rehabilitation programs vary widely in the types of services offered, and there is a lack of consistency with respect to the coordination of rehabilitation with oncologic treatment plans. There are no guidelines for outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings, and the types and characteristics of interventions that a Physiatrist can provide during these meetings have not been reported. The aims are as follows: –identify the frequency and characteristics of interventions derived through monthly interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation team meetings involving Physiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists; –compare the clinical characteristics of patients who did and did not receive interventions. Material and method This is a retrospective study of consecutive monthly outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation team meetings with Physiatrists’ participation. Results Over a 7-month period, there were 57 potential patients to be discussed and 42 patients were discussed. Among the 42 patients, 12 of them did not receive any interventions and 30 did, which yields 71% of patient receiving at least one intervention. Some patients required repeated discussions in different months; thus, a total of 71 discussions occurred and resulted in 51 interventions. Of the 71 discussions, 41 (58%) resulted in interventions and the most common intervention was coordination of care (37%). Thirty discussions (42%) did not result in any interventions, with the most common reason being stable or having improved functional status. Conclusion Regularly scheduled outpatient interdisciplinary cancer rehabilitation team meetings increase communication among rehabilitation specialists to identify outpatients experiencing barriers to therapy progress, provide interventions to address those barriers, and reassess rehabilitation goals previously established.