Cargando…
Comparison of Functional Status Tools Used in Post-Acute Care
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 pre...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
CENTERS for MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES
2003
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12894632 |
_version_ | 1782339195951382528 |
---|---|
author | Jette, Alan M. Haley, Stephen M. Ni, Pengsheng |
author_facet | Jette, Alan M. Haley, Stephen M. Ni, Pengsheng |
author_sort | Jette, Alan M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4194829 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2003 |
publisher | CENTERS for MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41948292014-11-04 Comparison of Functional Status Tools Used in Post-Acute Care Jette, Alan M. Haley, Stephen M. Ni, Pengsheng Health Care Financ Rev Research Article 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. CENTERS for MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES 2003 /pmc/articles/PMC4194829/ /pubmed/12894632 Text en |
spellingShingle | Research Article Jette, Alan M. Haley, Stephen M. Ni, Pengsheng Comparison of Functional Status Tools Used in Post-Acute Care |
title | Comparison of Functional Status Tools Used in Post-Acute Care |
title_full | Comparison of Functional Status Tools Used in Post-Acute Care |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Functional Status Tools Used in Post-Acute Care |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Functional Status Tools Used in Post-Acute Care |
title_short | Comparison of Functional Status Tools Used in Post-Acute Care |
title_sort | comparison of functional status tools used in post-acute care |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12894632 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jettealanm comparisonoffunctionalstatustoolsusedinpostacutecare AT haleystephenm comparisonoffunctionalstatustoolsusedinpostacutecare AT nipengsheng comparisonoffunctionalstatustoolsusedinpostacutecare |