Frequency and Characteristics of Recommendations from Interdisciplinary Outpatient Cancer Rehabilitation Monthly Team Meetings

• Published in: PM & R 2019-03, Vol.11 (3), p.252-257
• Main Authors: Tennison, Jegy M., Ngo‐Huang, An, Fu, Jack B., Hill, Anissa E., Dibaj, Seyedeh S., Bruera, Eduardo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Attitude of Health Personnel; Female; Humans; Interdisciplinary Communication; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasms - rehabilitation; Patient Care Team - organization & administration; Rehabilitation Centers; Retrospective Studies
• ISSN: 1934-1482; 1934-1563
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.06.016

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