Daniel J. Malone

Hospital readmissions in older adult populations are an emerging quality indicator for acute care hospitals. Recent evidence has linked functional decline during and after hospitalization with an elevated risk of hospital readmission. However, models of care that have been developed to reduce hospital readmission rates do not adequately address functional deficits. Physical therapists, as experts in optimizing physical function, have a strong opportunity to contribute meaningfully to care transition models and demonstrate the value of physical therapy interventions in reducing readmissions. Thus, the purposes of this perspective article are: (1) to describe the need for physical therapist input during care transitions for older adults and (2) to outline strategies for expanding physical therapy participation in care transitions for older adults, with an overall goal of reducing avoidable 30-day hospital readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Early rehabilitation improves outcomes, and increased use of physical therapist services in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been recommended. Little is known about the implementation of early rehabilitation programs or physical therapists' preparation and perceptions of care in the United States. OBJECTIVE: A national survey was conducted to determine the current status of physical therapist practice in the ICU. DESIGN: This study used a cross-sectional, observational design. METHODS: Self-report surveys were mailed to members of the Acute Care Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Questions addressed staffing, training, barriers, and protocols, and case scenarios were used to determine perceptions about providing rehabilitation. RESULTS: The response rate was 29% (667/2,320). Staffing, defined as the number of physical therapists per 100 ICU beds, was highest in community hospitals (academic: median=5.4 [range=3.6-9.2]; community: median=6.7 [range=4.4-10.0]) and in the western United States (median=7.5 [range=4.2-12.9]). Twelve percent of physical therapists reported no training. Barriers to providing ICU rehabilitation included insufficient staffing and training, departmental prioritization policies, and inadequate consultation criteria. Responses to case scenarios demonstrated differences in the likelihood of consultation and physical therapists' prescribed frequency and intensity of care based on medical interventions rather than characteristics of patients. Physical therapists in academic hospitals were more likely to be involved in the care of patients in each scenario and were more likely to perform higher-intensity mobilization. LIMITATIONS: Members of the Acute Care Section of the American Physical Therapy Association may not represent most practicing physical therapists, and the 29% return rate may have contributed to response bias. CONCLUSIONS: Although staffing was higher in community hospitals, therapists in academic and community hospitals cited insufficient staffing as the most common barrier to providing rehabilitation in the ICU. Implementing strategies to overcome barriers identified in this study may improve the delivery of ICU rehabilitation services.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated safety, feasibility, and decreased hospital length of stay for patients with weakness acquired in the intensive care unit (ICU) who receive early physical rehabilitation. The scored Physical Function in Intensive Care Test (PFIT-s) was specifically designed for this population and demonstrated excellent psychometrics in an Australian ICU population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the responsiveness and predictive capabilities of the PFIT-s in patients in the United States admitted to the ICU who required mechanical ventilation (MV) for 4 days or longer. METHODS: This nested study within a randomized trial administered the PFIT-s, Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score, and grip strength test at ICU recruitment and then weekly until hospital discharge, including at ICU discharge. Spearman rho was used to determine validity. The effect size index was used to calculate measurement responsiveness for the PFIT-s. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used in predicting participants' ability to perform functional components of the PFIT-s. RESULTS: From August 2009 to July 2012, 51 patients were recruited from 4 ICUs in the Denver, Colorado, metro area. At ICU discharge, PFIT-s scores were highly correlated to MRC sum scores (rho=.923) and grip strength (rho=.763) (P<.0005). Using baseline test with ICU discharge (26 pairs), test responsiveness was large (1.14). At ICU discharge, an MRC sum score cut-point of 41.5 predicted participants' ability to perform the standing components of the PFIT-s. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size was a limitation. However, the findings are consistent with those in a larger sample from Australia. CONCLUSIONS: The PFIT-s is a feasible and valid measure of function for individuals who require MV for 4 days or longer and who are alert, able to follow commands, and have sufficient strength to participate.

The emergence of invasive fungal wound infections (IFIs) in combat casualties led to development of a combat trauma-specific IFI case definition and classification. Prospective data were collected from 1133 US military personnel injured in Afghanistan (June 2009-August 2011). The IFI rates ranged from 0·2% to 11·7% among ward and intensive care unit admissions, respectively (6·8% overall). Seventy-seven IFI cases were classified as proven/probable (n = 54) and possible/unclassifiable (n = 23) and compared in a case-case analysis. There was no difference in clinical characteristics between the proven/probable and possible/unclassifiable cases. Possible IFI cases had shorter time to diagnosis (P = 0·02) and initiation of antifungal therapy (P = 0·05) and fewer operative visits (P = 0·002) compared to proven/probable cases, but clinical outcomes were similar between the groups. Although the trauma-related IFI classification scheme did not provide prognostic information, it is an effective tool for clinical and epidemiological surveillance and research.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common side effect of cancer treatment. Regular surveillance is recommended, but few clinical practice guidelines transparently assess study bias, quality, and clinical utility in deriving recommendations of screening and assessment methods. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide recommendations for the screening and assessment of CRF for health care professions treating individuals with cancer. Following best practices for development of a CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Statement and Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) Guidelines Trust Scorecard, this CPG included a systematic search of the literature, quality assessment of included evidence, and stakeholder input from diverse health care fields to derive the final CPG. Ten screening and 15 assessment tools supported by 114 articles were reviewed. One screen (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 Core Questionnaire) and 3 assessments (Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Fatigue-SF) received an A recommendation ("should be used in clinical practice"), and 1 screen and 5 assessments received a B recommendation ("may be used in clinical practice"). Health care providers have choice in determining appropriate screening and assessment tools to be used across the survivorship care continuum. The large number of tools available to screen for or assess CRF may result in a lack of comprehensive research evidence, leaving gaps in the body of evidence for measurement tools. More research into the responsiveness of these tools is needed in order to adopt their use as outcome measures. IMPACT: Health care providers should screen for and assess CRF using one of the tools recommended by this CPG.