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 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.
Jette
Alan M
AM
Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA. ajette@bu.edu
Haley
Stephen M
SM
Ni
Pengsheng
P
D000203:Activities of Daily Living / Q000145:classification*; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001900:Boston; D003266:Continuity of Patient Care; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D019467:Subacute Care / Q000592:standards*; D016896:Treatment Outcome