Literature DB >> 35288084

Characterizing Standardized Functional Data at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities.

Chih-Ying Li1, Trudy Mallinson2, Hyunkyoung Kim3, James Graham4, Yong-Fang Kuo5, Kenneth J Ottenbacher6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 mandates using standardized patient functional data across post-acute settings. This study characterized similarities and differences in clinician-observed scores of self-care and transfer items for the standardized section GG functional domain and the functional independent measure (FIM) at inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
DESIGN: We conducted secondary analyses of 2017 Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation national data. Patients were assessed by clinicians on both section GG and FIM at admission and discharge. We identified 7 self-care items and 6 transfer items in section GG conceptually equivalent with FIM. Clinician-assessed scores for each pair of items were examined using score distributions, Bland-Altman plot, correlation (Pearson coefficients), and agreement (kappa and weighted kappa) analyses. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In all, 408,491 patients were admitted to Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation-affiliated inpatient rehabilitation facilities with one of the following impairments: stroke, brain dysfunction, neurologic condition, orthopedic disorders, and debility. MEASURES: Section GG and FIM.
RESULTS: Patients were scored as more functionally independent in section GG compared with FIM, but change score distributions and score orders within impairment groups were similar. Total scores in section GG had strong positive correlations (self-care: r = 0.87 and 0.95; transfer: r = 0.82 and 0.90 at admission and discharge, respectively) with total FIM scores. Weak to moderate ranking agreements with total FIM scores were observed (self-care: kappa = 0.49 and 0.60; transfers: kappa = 0.43 and 0.52 at admission and discharge, respectively). Lower agreements were observed for less able patients at admission and for higher ability patients of their change scores. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, response patterns were similar in section GG and FIM across impairments. However, variations exist in score distributions and ranking agreement. Future research should examine the use of GG codes to maintain effective care, outcomes, and unbiased reimbursement across post-acute settings. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  (meSH terms): Subacute care; Health Services Administration; Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; critical care outcomes; health care; mobility; outcome and process assessment; self-care

Year:  2022        PMID: 35288084      PMCID: PMC9464264          DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc        ISSN: 1525-8610            Impact factor:   7.802


  9 in total

1.  Pitfalls of using administrative data for research.

Authors:  David Lieberman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Reporting of method comparison studies: a review of advice, an assessment of current practice, and specific suggestions for future reports.

Authors:  A Abu-Arafeh; H Jordan; G Drummond
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research.

Authors:  M M Mukaka
Journal:  Malawi Med J       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 0.875

4.  Coming to Terms With the IMPACT Act of 2014.

Authors:  Gerben DeJong
Journal:  Am J Occup Ther       Date:  2016 May-Jun

5.  Performance profiles of the functional independence measure.

Authors:  C V Granger; B B Hamilton; J M Linacre; A W Heinemann; B D Wright
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.159

6.  The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure.

Authors:  J M Linacre; A W Heinemann; B D Wright; C V Granger; B B Hamilton
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Secondary analysis of existing data: opportunities and implementation.

Authors:  Hui G Cheng; Michael R Phillips
Journal:  Shanghai Arch Psychiatry       Date:  2014-12

Review 8.  Understanding Bland Altman analysis.

Authors:  Davide Giavarina
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 2.313

Review 9.  Reporting Standards for a Bland-Altman Agreement Analysis: A Review of Methodological Reviews.

Authors:  Oke Gerke
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-22
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.