Analysis of draft Australian rehabilitation service standards: comparison with international standards.
BACKGROUND
Following her review of health systems and structures Dwyer 1 suggested that there is a need to evaluate models of care for individuals with chronic diseases. Rehabilitation services aim to optimise the activity and participation of individuals with restrictions due to both acute and chronic conditions. Assessing and optimising the standard of these services is one method of assuring the quality of service delivered to these individuals. Knowledge of baseline standards allows evaluation of the impact of health care reforms in this area of need. The aim of this article is to compare the currently available rehabilitation service standards in Australia with those used in the USA and the UK.


RESULTS
The mixed method qualitative analysis performed on the three sets of standards demonstrated repeatability and convergence via the use of triangulation. Australian Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine (AFRM) standards were found to be consistent and concise, to provide definitions, and to cover the majority of clinically relevant issues to an extent similar to the other rehabilitation service standards. Inclusion of standards for business practices, the rehabilitation process for the person served, and outpatient and community-based rehabilitation services should be considered by the AFRM.


CONCLUSIONS
The AFRM standards are an appropriate way of assessing rehabilitation services in Australia. As suggested by other workers 23 there should be ongoing review and field testing of the standards to maximise the relevance and utilisation of the standards.
Graham
Susan K
SK
Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. susan-graham@ausdoctors.net.
Cameron
Ian D
ID
Dickson
Hugh G
HG