Limits...
Comparison of functional status tools used in post-acute care.

Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P - Health Care Financ Rev (2003)

Bottom Line: Results illustrate limitations in the range of content, breadth of coverage, and measurement precision in each outcome instrument.None appears well-equipped to meet the challenge of monitoring quality and functional outcomes across settings where PAC is provided.Limitations in existing assessment methodology has stimulated the development of more comprehensive outcome assessment systems specifically for monitoring the quality of services provided to PAC patients.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA. ajette@bu.edu

ABSTRACT
There is a growing health policy mandate for comprehensive monitoring of functional outcomes across post-acute care (PAC) settings. This article presents an empirical comparison of four functional outcome instruments used in PAC with respect to their content, breadth of coverage, and measurement precision. Results illustrate limitations in the range of content, breadth of coverage, and measurement precision in each outcome instrument. None appears well-equipped to meet the challenge of monitoring quality and functional outcomes across settings where PAC is provided. Limitations in existing assessment methodology has stimulated the development of more comprehensive outcome assessment systems specifically for monitoring the quality of services provided to PAC patients.

Show MeSH
Comparison of Actual Ranges Covered by the Four Post-Acute Care Instruments
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4194829&req=5

f2-hcfr-24-3-013: Comparison of Actual Ranges Covered by the Four Post-Acute Care Instruments

Mentions: The actual range of functional ability that is covered by the items contained in each of the four functional outcome instruments is presented in Figure 2. The content coverage is calculated by the high and low step estimates for each item's response categories instead of average estimates, which were the basis of the information presented in Figure 1. Consistent with the general spread of the functional ability parameters illustrated in Figure 1, the range of coverage shown in Figure 2 appears greatest for both the MDS and the OASIS instruments as compared with either the FIMâ„¢ or PF-10 scales. Because of the high step estimate for one of the transportation items in the OASIS, the actual range of coverage of the OASIS is nearly the entire range of all four instruments.


Comparison of functional status tools used in post-acute care.

Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P - Health Care Financ Rev (2003)

Comparison of Actual Ranges Covered by the Four Post-Acute Care Instruments
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4194829&req=5

f2-hcfr-24-3-013: Comparison of Actual Ranges Covered by the Four Post-Acute Care Instruments
Mentions: The actual range of functional ability that is covered by the items contained in each of the four functional outcome instruments is presented in Figure 2. The content coverage is calculated by the high and low step estimates for each item's response categories instead of average estimates, which were the basis of the information presented in Figure 1. Consistent with the general spread of the functional ability parameters illustrated in Figure 1, the range of coverage shown in Figure 2 appears greatest for both the MDS and the OASIS instruments as compared with either the FIMâ„¢ or PF-10 scales. Because of the high step estimate for one of the transportation items in the OASIS, the actual range of coverage of the OASIS is nearly the entire range of all four instruments.

Bottom Line: Results illustrate limitations in the range of content, breadth of coverage, and measurement precision in each outcome instrument.None appears well-equipped to meet the challenge of monitoring quality and functional outcomes across settings where PAC is provided.Limitations in existing assessment methodology has stimulated the development of more comprehensive outcome assessment systems specifically for monitoring the quality of services provided to PAC patients.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA. ajette@bu.edu

ABSTRACT
There is a growing health policy mandate for comprehensive monitoring of functional outcomes across post-acute care (PAC) settings. This article presents an empirical comparison of four functional outcome instruments used in PAC with respect to their content, breadth of coverage, and measurement precision. Results illustrate limitations in the range of content, breadth of coverage, and measurement precision in each outcome instrument. None appears well-equipped to meet the challenge of monitoring quality and functional outcomes across settings where PAC is provided. Limitations in existing assessment methodology has stimulated the development of more comprehensive outcome assessment systems specifically for monitoring the quality of services provided to PAC patients.

Show MeSH