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
Measurement Precision of Post-Acute Care Instruments, by Test
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4194829&req=5

f3-hcfr-24-3-013: Measurement Precision of Post-Acute Care Instruments, by Test

Mentions: Figure 3 displays the measurement precision of each instrument as depicted by the test information function curves. These curves are superimposed with the average score on the functional ability continuum and ±2 standard deviation for the inpatients and community samples. Note the location of the peak amount of precision for each instrument in relationship to each sample. Although the OASIS items contain a broad range of content, as was seen in Figure 2, the OASIS items provide a high degree of measurement precision at only the very low end of the functional ability dimension for both the inpatient and community samples. The precision of MDS items is also greatest at the lower functional ability dimension levels, although the MDS items have a greater span of functional ability in which they provide some levels of precision. The FIM™ items peak at the low to moderate end of the inpatient sample. In contrast, the information function of the PF-10 items peaks at the high end of the community outpatient sample with very poor precision for the inpatient sample.


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

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

Measurement Precision of Post-Acute Care Instruments, by Test
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f3-hcfr-24-3-013: Measurement Precision of Post-Acute Care Instruments, by Test
Mentions: Figure 3 displays the measurement precision of each instrument as depicted by the test information function curves. These curves are superimposed with the average score on the functional ability continuum and ±2 standard deviation for the inpatients and community samples. Note the location of the peak amount of precision for each instrument in relationship to each sample. Although the OASIS items contain a broad range of content, as was seen in Figure 2, the OASIS items provide a high degree of measurement precision at only the very low end of the functional ability dimension for both the inpatient and community samples. The precision of MDS items is also greatest at the lower functional ability dimension levels, although the MDS items have a greater span of functional ability in which they provide some levels of precision. The FIM™ items peak at the low to moderate end of the inpatient sample. In contrast, the information function of the PF-10 items peaks at the high end of the community outpatient sample with very poor precision for the inpatient sample.

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