OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the applicability of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) checklist in post-acute traumatically brain-injured patients in rehabilitation settings. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study based on the written documents of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team. SUBJECTS: A sample of 55 patients with traumatic brain injury. METHODS: Two raters extracted information from the patients' medical documents using the ICF checklist. The most common ICF categories were identified and the agreement between the raters was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 123 checklist categories, 30 reached a prevalence of 30% or more in the ratings of both raters, and 18 further categories reached a prevalence of 30% or more in the ratings of either one rater. Seventy-five categories (61%) did not reach the cut-off point and were thus considered irrelevant. Fourteen ICF categories not included in the checklist were also considered important. Extracting the data from pre-existing documents seems to be reliable: in 86% of the most relevant categories the difference between the raters in the qualifier values was at most 1. CONCLUSION: A checklist is a practical tool in clinical work. However, the current ICF checklist seems not to be adequate in characterizing patients with post-acute traumatic brain injury. Developing an ICF core set for these patients might prove useful.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the applicability of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) checklist in post-acute traumatically brain-injuredpatients in rehabilitation settings. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study based on the written documents of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team. SUBJECTS: A sample of 55 patients with traumatic brain injury. METHODS: Two raters extracted information from the patients' medical documents using the ICF checklist. The most common ICF categories were identified and the agreement between the raters was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 123 checklist categories, 30 reached a prevalence of 30% or more in the ratings of both raters, and 18 further categories reached a prevalence of 30% or more in the ratings of either one rater. Seventy-five categories (61%) did not reach the cut-off point and were thus considered irrelevant. Fourteen ICF categories not included in the checklist were also considered important. Extracting the data from pre-existing documents seems to be reliable: in 86% of the most relevant categories the difference between the raters in the qualifier values was at most 1. CONCLUSION: A checklist is a practical tool in clinical work. However, the current ICF checklist seems not to be adequate in characterizing patients with post-acute traumatic brain injury. Developing an ICF core set for these patients might prove useful.
Authors: Stephanie Book; Gudrun Ulbrecht; Johanna Tomandl; Thomas Kuehlein; Susann Gotthardt; Ellen Freiberger; Elmar Graessel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 2.692