These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Inpatient cancer rehabilitation: a retrospective comparison of transfer back to acute care between patients with neoplasm and other rehabilitation patients.
    Author: Alam E, Wilson RD, Vargo MM.
    Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2008 Jul; 89(7):1284-9. PubMed ID: 18586130.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with diagnoses of neoplasm undergoing acute rehabilitation differ from other patients in frequency of acute care transfer and type of medical complications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Acute rehabilitation hospital located within an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with diagnosis of neoplasm (n=40) and patients without neoplasm (n=253) requiring transfer were identified from a database of 2801 rehabilitation discharges over nearly a 4-year period. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of unplanned transfer and reasons for the transfer. RESULTS: Significant difference occurred in overall rate of transfer between patients with neoplasm (21%) and controls (9.7%; P<.001). When evaluated separately for type of neoplasm (with patients receiving corresponding type of rehabilitation as controls), a significantly higher rate of transfer to acute care was found for brain tumor (25% vs 12%; P=.004) and spinal cord neoplasms (23% vs 10%; P=.009), but statistical significance was not reached for other tumor types (12.5% vs 7.4%; P=.19). Patients with stroke with neoplasm as a comorbidity, analyzed separately, with the other patients with stroke as controls, had significantly higher risk of transfer (22% vs 10%; P=.012). Logistic regression analysis found an odds ratio (OR) of 2.5 for unplanned transfer among patients with diagnosis of neoplasm (OR=2.5 for malignancy; OR=2.4 for benign neoplasm). Patients with neoplasm had infection as the most common reason for transfer (28% of the neoplasm transfers vs 18% of other transfers; P=.01), whereas in the nonneoplasm group, cardiopulmonary factors predominated (12% of patients with tumor vs 31% of patients without tumor transfers; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present sample, patients with neoplasm were more likely to require transfer than patients without neoplasm, although this pattern did not reach statistical significance for noncentral nervous system cases. Overall, patients with neoplasm appear more likely than those without neoplasm to have an infectious cause for unplanned transfer. Increased awareness of this difference may lead to improved medical management on rehabilitation units.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]