Functional gain and length of stay for major rehabilitation impairment categories: Patterns revealed by function related groups

American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 75, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 68-78

  Stineman, Margaret G ^a,d   Hamilton, Byron B ^b   Goin, James E ^a   Granger, Carl V ^c   Fiedler, Roger C ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^d 101 Ralston Penn Center ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of Daily Living; Case Mix; Outcomes Assessment; Quality Assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; REHABILITATION; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENTS; REHABILITATION;

EID: 0029879017     PISSN: 08949115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00002060-199601000-00018     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Epstein AM: The outcomes movement - will it get us where we want to go? N Engl J Med 1990;323:266-269.
2. Joint Commission on Accreditation of HealthCare Organizations: A Guide to Establishing Programs for Assessing Outcomes in Clinical Settings. Oakbrook Terrace, IL Joint Commission, 1994, p 25.
3. Vibbert S, Migdail KJ, Strickland D, Young MT: The 1995 Medical Outcomes & Guidelines Sourcebook. Washington, DC, Faulkner & Gray, 1994, p 40.
4. Ellwood PM. Shattuck lecture - outcomes management. A technology of patient experience. N Engl J Med 1988;318: 1549-1556.
5. Kritchevsky SB, Simmons BP. Continuous quality improvement: concepts and applications for physician care. JAMA 1991; 266:1817-1823.
6. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Gresham GE, Kramer A. The stroke rehabilitation outcome study. Part II. Relative merits of the Barthel Index score and a four-item subscore in predicting patient outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:100-103.
7. Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger CV. Prediction of rehabilitation outcomes with disability measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:133-143.
8. Hosek S, Kane R, Carney M, et al: Charges and Outcomes for Rehabilitation Care: Implications for the Prospective Payment System. (R-3424-HCFA.) Santa Monica, CA, The Rand Corp., 1986.
9. Harada N, Sofaer S, Kominski G. Functional status outcomes in rehabilitation: implications for prospective payment. Med Care 1993;31:345-357.
10. Stineman MG, Maislin G, Williams SV. Applying quantitative methods to the prediction of full functional recovery in adult rehabilitation patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:787-795.
11. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA, Zielezny M, Sherwin FS. Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation, in Lewis CB (ed): Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation. Rockville, MD, Aspen Systems Corp., 1986, vol 1, pp 59-74.
12. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tashman JS. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation, in Fuhrer MJ (ed): Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurement. Baltimore, Brookes Publishing, 1987.
13. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation, in Eisenberg MG, Grzesiak RC (eds): Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1987.
14. Stineman MG, Escarce JJ, Goin JE, Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Williams SV. A case-mix classification system for medical rehabilitation. Med Care 1994;32:366-379.
15. Stineman MG, Granger CV, Escarce JJ, Goin JE, Hamilton BB, Williams SV. A Prototype Classification System for Medical Rehabilitation. Washington, DC, American Rehabilitation Association, 1994.
16. Wright BD, Stone MH. Best Test Design: Rasch Measurement. Chicago, Mesa Press, 1979.
17. Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:308-312.
18. Silverstein B, Kilgore KM, Fisher WP, Harley P, Harvey RF. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: I. Exploring unidimensionality. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991;72:631-637.
19. Center for Functional Assessment Research and the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. GUIDE for Use of the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation Including the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Version 3.1. Buffalo, NY, Research Foundation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1990.
20. Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation Report on First Admissions for 1990. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1992;71:108-113.
21. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:127-132.
22. Heinemann AW, Hamilton BB, Granger CV, et al. Rating Scale Analysis of Functional Assessment Measures: Final Report. Chicago, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, 1991.
23. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ. Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, 1984.
24. Jencks SF, Wilensky GR. The health care quality improvement initiative. JAMA 1992;268:900-903.
25. Feinstein AR, Josephy BR, Wells CK. Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Ann Intern Med 1986;105:413-420.
26. Alexander MP. Stroke rehabilitation outcome: a potential use of predictive variables to establish levels of care. Stroke 1994;25:128-134.
27. Kalra L. Does age affect benefits of stroke unit rehabilitation? Stroke 1994;25:346-351.
28. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 1989.
29. DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications, 1991.
30. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory, ed 2. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1978.
31. Cronbach LJ, Furby L. How we should measure "change" - or should we? Psychol Bull 1970;74:68-80.
32. Rogosa D, Brandt D, Zimowski M. A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychol Bull 1982;92: 726-748.
33. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:857-860.
34. Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger CV. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:566-573.