Toward benchmarks for stroke rehabilitation in Ontario, Canada

American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 85, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 971-976

  Bagg, Stephen D ^a   Pombo, Alicia Paris ^b   Hopman, Wilma M ^c  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Monterey County Health Department   (United States)

^c KINGSTON GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Benchmarks; FIM; Rehabilitation; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NURSING HOME; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CODING; QUALITY CONTROL; REHABILITATION CENTER; STROKE; TREATMENT DURATION; UNITED STATES;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BENCHMARKING; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ONTARIO; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT DISCHARGE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REHABILITATION CENTERS;

EID: 33751229598     PISSN: 08949115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.phm.0000242621.78161.c8     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Prevalence of Stroke. Health Matters Resource Library, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Ottawa, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, 2001
2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada: Stroke statistics. Available at http://ww2.heartandstroke.ca/Page.asp?PageID=33&ArticleID=428&Src= stroke&From=SubCategory. Accessed November 28, 2005
3. Rehabilitation data standards for Canada pilot project report. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health Information, 1999
4. Coordinated stroke strategy stroke rehabilitation consensus panel report. Toronto, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, 2000
5. Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration: Organized inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke (Cochrane review), in Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Oxford, Update Software, 2003
6. Teasell R, Foley N, Bhogal S, Doherty T, Speechley M: The efficacy of stroke rehabilitation, in Evidence Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation, 5th ed., 2004
7. Helyar C, Flett J, Hundert M, Fallon G, Mosher G, Crawford R: Benchmarking comparisons of the efficiency and quality of care of Canadian teaching hospitals. Hospital Quarterly 1998;14:14-25
8. Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (including the FIM™ instrument), Version 5.1. Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1997
9. Stineman MG, Hamilton BB, Goin JE, Granger CV, Fiedler RC: Functional gain and length of stay for major rehabilitation impairment categories: Patterns revealed by functional related groups. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1996;5:68-78
10. Deutsch A, Braun S, Granger CV: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM™ instrument). J Rehabil Outcomes Meas 1997;1:67-71
11. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger C, Fiedler RC: The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1226-32
12. Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, Granger CV: Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scand J Rehab Med 1994;26:115-9
13. Stineman MG, Jette A, Fiedler R, Granger C: Impairment-specific dimensions within the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:636-43
14. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC: Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:133-8
15. Hamilton BB, Granger CV: Disability outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Phys Ther 1994;74:494-503
16. Sandstrom R, Mokler PJ, Hoppe KM: Discharge destination and motor function outcome in severe stroke as measured by the Functional Independence Measure/Functional-Related Group classification system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:762-5
17. Stineman MG, Fiedler RC, Granger CV, Maislin G: Functional task benchmarks for stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:497-504
18. Health Services Restructuring Commission: Change and transition: Planning guidelines and implementation strategies for home care, long-term care, mental health, rehabilitation and sub-acute care. Toronto, Health Services Restructuring Commission, 1998
19. Care Delivery Network of Southeastern Ontario: An introduction to Southeastern Ontario: a demographic, socioeconomic, health status and health services profile of Southeastern Ontario. Queen's University, Care Delivery Network, 1998
20. Stroke-1989. Recommendations on stroke prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. Report of the WHO Task Force on Stroke and other Cerebrovascular Disorders.. Stroke 1989;20:1407-31
21. Stineman MG, Tassoni CJ, Escarce JJ, et al : Development of function related groups Version 2.0: a classification system for medical rehabilitation. Health Serv Res 1997;32:529-48
22. Oczkowski WJ, Barreca S: The Functional Independence measure: its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:1291-4
23. Danmartin C, Ng E, Blackwell D, Gentleman J, Martinez M, Simile C: Joint Canada/United States survey of health, 2002-03. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Statistics Canada, 2003, Catalogue number 82M0022XIE. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2006
24. Rundek T, Nielsen K, Phillips S, et al: Health care resource use after acute stroke in the Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection (GAIN) Americas Trial. Stroke 2004;35:1368-74
25. Stineman MG, Ross RN, Hamilton BB, et al: Inpatient rehabilitation after stroke: a comparison of lengths of stay and outcomes in the Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs health care system. Med Care 2001;39:123-37