Robyn Sierla1,2, Elizabeth S Dylke1, Tim Shaw1, Simon Poon3, Sharon L Kilbreath1. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 2. Department of Occupational Therapy, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 3. School of Computer Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
Background: Clinical management of lymphedema requires assessment, initially for detection, and then for determining treatment response and informing the treatment plan. It is unknown how the components of a lymphedema assessment are used in a clinical environment. Methods and Results: Experienced lymphedema therapists were observed assessing patients presenting with new or existing upper body lymphedema. Occupational and physiotherapists specializing in lymphedema management (n = 14) from public and private, rural and urban settings in Australia were visited at their work sites and observed with a minimum of two patients. In total, 37 upper limb assessments were observed. Reasons for attendance included: initial assessment with new swelling (n = 4); screening/detection for possible lymphedema (n = 3); bandaging as part of an intensive treatment program (n = 2); and review (n = 28). Clinicians were observed, in order of frequency, using (1) patient-reported outcomes, (2) palpation, (3) visual assessment, (4) assessment of limb size using circumference measurements, and (5) assessment of extracellular fluid using bioimpedance spectroscopy. Although clinicians selected similar assessments, differences were observed in the measurement protocols and informed reported. Objective assessment was commonly absent when the time available for an appointment was 30 minutes. Conclusions: While clinicians spent a significant portion of an appointment time assessing the limb, a standardized approach to the assessment of lymphedema was not observed. In the absence of a standardized assessment set, therapists have developed bespoke assessment routines.
Background: Clinical management of lymphedema requires assessment, initially for detection, and then for determining treatment response and informing the treatment plan. It is unknown how the components of a lymphedema assessment are used in a clinical environment. Methods and Results: Experienced lymphedema therapists were observed assessing patients presenting with new or existing upper body lymphedema. Occupational and physiotherapists specializing in lymphedema management (n = 14) from public and private, rural and urban settings in Australia were visited at their work sites and observed with a minimum of two patients. In total, 37 upper limb assessments were observed. Reasons for attendance included: initial assessment with new swelling (n = 4); screening/detection for possible lymphedema (n = 3); bandaging as part of an intensive treatment program (n = 2); and review (n = 28). Clinicians were observed, in order of frequency, using (1) patient-reported outcomes, (2) palpation, (3) visual assessment, (4) assessment of limb size using circumference measurements, and (5) assessment of extracellular fluid using bioimpedance spectroscopy. Although clinicians selected similar assessments, differences were observed in the measurement protocols and informed reported. Objective assessment was commonly absent when the time available for an appointment was 30 minutes. Conclusions: While clinicians spent a significant portion of an appointment time assessing the limb, a standardized approach to the assessment of lymphedema was not observed. In the absence of a standardized assessment set, therapists have developed bespoke assessment routines.