Effectiveness of Supplemental Upper Extremity Training With Specialty Therapist for Patients With Stroke in Inpatient Rehabilitation

2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (10) ◽  
pp. e24-e25
Author(s):  
Emily Dickey
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Inpatient Rehabilitation

Implementation of a Shoulder Program for Post-Stroke Upper Extremity Complications in Inpatient Rehabilitation

2019 ◽  
Vol 100 (10) ◽  
pp. e89-e90
Author(s):  
Priyanka Kapoor ◽  
Joanna Allbright ◽  
Librada Callender ◽  
Molly Trammell
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Inpatient Rehabilitation ◽  
Post Stroke

scholarly journals Immersive Virtual Reality to Improve Outcomes in Veterans With Stroke: Protocol for a Single-Arm Pilot Study (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna E Tran ◽  
Christopher A Fowler ◽  
Jemy Delikat ◽  
Howard Kaplan ◽  
Marie M Merzier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Inpatient Rehabilitation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Rehabilitation Program ◽  
Neurologic Recovery ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Hand Dexterity

BACKGROUND Over the last decade, virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a cutting-edge technology in stroke rehabilitation. VR is defined as a type of computer-user interface that implements real-time simulation of an activity or environment allowing user interaction via multiple sensory modalities. In a stroke population, VR interventions have been shown to enhance motor, cognitive, and psychological recovery when utilized as a rehabilitation adjunct. VR has also demonstrated noninferiority to usual care therapies for stroke rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE The proposed pilot study aims to (1) determine the feasibility and tolerability of using a therapeutic VR platform in an inpatient comprehensive stroke rehabilitation program and (2) estimate the initial clinical efficacy (effect size) associated with the VR platform using apps for pain distraction and upper extremity exercise for poststroke neurologic recovery. METHODS This study will be conducted in the Comprehensive Integrated Inpatient Rehabilitation Program at the James A Haley Veterans’ Hospital. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with 10 clinical staff members to assess the feasibility of the VR platform from the clinician perspective. A prospective within-subject pretest-posttest pilot design will be used to examine the tolerability of the VR platform and the clinical outcomes (ie, upper extremity neurologic recovery, hand dexterity, pain severity) in 10 veteran inpatients. A VR platform consisting of commercially available pain distraction and upper extremity apps will be available at the participants’ bedside for daily use during their inpatient stay (approximately 4-6 weeks). Clinician interviews will be analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis. Cohen <i>d</i> effect sizes with corresponding 95% CIs will be calculated for upper extremity neurologic recovery, hand dexterity, and pain. The proportion of participants who achieve minimal clinically important difference after using the VR platform will be calculated for each clinical outcome. RESULTS This study was selected for funding in August 2020. Institutional review board approval was received in October 2020. The project start date was December 2020. The United States Department has issued a moratorium on in-person research activities secondary to COVID-19. Data collection will commence once this moratorium is lifted. CONCLUSIONS Our next step is to conduct a large multi-site clinical trial that will incorporate the lessons learned from this pilot feasibility study to test the efficacy of a VR intervention in inpatient rehabilitation and transition to home environments. When VR is used in patients’ rooms, it serves to provide additional therapy and may reduce clinician burden. VR also presents an opportunity similar to home-based practice exercises. VR can be implemented in both clinical settings and people’s own homes, where engagement in ongoing self-management approaches is often most challenging. This unique experience offers the potential for seamless transition from inpatient rehabilitation to the home. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/26133

Neurological complications in COVID-19: a single case study of rehabilitation treatment

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Casertano ◽  
Rae Nathanson ◽  
Clare C Bassile ◽  
Lori Quinn
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Inpatient Rehabilitation ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Rehabilitation Unit

Background/aims: COVID-19 is a global pandemic, which has seen over 198 million cases as of August 2021. This case study highlights the rehabilitation of a young patient with respiratory and neurologic sequalae of COVID-19 across the continuum of care, from the intensive care unit to the inpatient rehabilitation unit. Case description: A 45-year-old woman, with past medical history of fibromyalgia and morbid obesity, presented with complaints of shortness of breath. She tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, was transferred to the intensive care unit, and was intubated for 17 days. The day after extubation, she experienced worsened mental status; computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed bilateral strokes. On hospital day 21, she was transferred to the stroke step-down unit. On hospital day 24, she recovered some cognitive ability and movement of her lower extremities. On hospital day 30, she was admitted to the inpatient rehabilitation unit. Examination by occupational and physiotherapists found motor and sensory impairments of multiple peripheral nerves, including musculocutaneous, axillary and radial nerves. Interventions included passive range of motion, sitting balance, transfer training, rigid taping, upper extremity strengthening and functional training (gait, stair, activities of daily living). Her activities of daily living performance was limited by upper extremity weakness, sensory loss and pain. Conclusions This case highlights the medical, neurological and functional implications of COVID-19 on patients after prolonged hospitalisation. The plan of care was informed by collaboration between rehabilitation disciplines. Causes of her injuries are unclear but could include positioning, brachial plexus injuries, or post-critical illness syndrome. Further research on the evaluation and care of patients with COVID-19 that result in profound neurological impairments is warranted.

scholarly journals Rehabilitation of the upper extremity and basic activities of daily living in the first month after ischemic stroke: an international cohort comparison study

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesar Minelli ◽  
Francisco A.A. Gondim ◽  
Amilton Antunes Barreira ◽  
Alexander W. Dromerick
Keyword(s):  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Inpatient Rehabilitation ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Outpatient Rehabilitation ◽  
Comparison Study ◽  
Cohort Comparison ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness

Background: Inpatient rehabilitation has been traditionally employed in developed countries, while in developing countries, outpatient rehabilitation is the rule. The purpose of this study was to compare the patterns of recovery of upper extremity (UE) function, global impairment and independence in activities of daily living (ADL) during the first month after ischaemic stroke in inpatient (United States) and outpatient (Brazil) rehabilitation settings. Design and Methods: This is a prospective cohort comparison study. Twenty patients from each country were selected using identical inclusion criteria. The study measures employed were the UE portion of the Fugl-Meyer scale, the Action Research Arm test, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Barthel Index. Changes from baseline to the end of treatment, efficiency and effectiveness of each treatment were compared. Results: Both populations exhibited significant improvement between the first and second evaluations in the four outcome scales (P <0.0001). There were no differences between the two rehabilitation settings on any of the four dependent measures (P>0.05). Conclusions: Substantially different treatment approaches after ischaemic stroke led to similar results in UE function, global impairment and ADL. Further studies in larger populations should be performed in order to confirm the present results.

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Illness Behavior ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeon ◽  
First Case ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Physical Examinations ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document