B E Fries1, M Schroll, C Hawes, R Gilgen, P V Jónsson, P Park. 1. Institute of Gerontology and School of Public Health, VA Medical Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109-2007, USA. bfries@umich.edu
Abstract
METHOD: since the 1990 implementation of the US nursing home Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), researchers in other nations have begun to use the RAI to assess institutionalized elders for payment, research, or planning purposes. We report comparative statistics representing institutionalized residents in seven nations, describing from several hundred to hundreds of thousands of residents. RESULTS: significant differences are seen in age and length of stay, and in summary measures of physical and cognitive functioning and case-mix. Countries also differ in their homogeneity across nursing homes. CONCLUSION: these differences strengthen the position that 'nursing home' does not provide a sound basis for cross-national comparisons, and should be replaced with resident-specific descriptors. This also suggests that cross-national comparisons need to adjust at the level of the individual resident for differences in resident populations.
METHOD: since the 1990 implementation of the US nursing home Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), researchers in other nations have begun to use the RAI to assess institutionalized elders for payment, research, or planning purposes. We report comparative statistics representing institutionalized residents in seven nations, describing from several hundred to hundreds of thousands of residents. RESULTS: significant differences are seen in age and length of stay, and in summary measures of physical and cognitive functioning and case-mix. Countries also differ in their homogeneity across nursing homes. CONCLUSION: these differences strengthen the position that 'nursing home' does not provide a sound basis for cross-national comparisons, and should be replaced with resident-specific descriptors. This also suggests that cross-national comparisons need to adjust at the level of the individual resident for differences in resident populations.
Authors: John P Hirdes; Trevor F Smith; Terry Rabinowitz; Keita Yamauchi; Edgardo Pérez; Nancy Curtin Telegdi; Peter Prendergast; John N Morris; Naoki Ikegami; Charles D Phillips; Brant E Fries Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Sonja V Sorensen; Gregory de Lissovoy; Dan Kunaprayoon; Barbara Resnick; Marcia F T Rupnow; Stephanie Studenski Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Zhanlian Feng; John P Hirdes; Trevor F Smith; Harriet Finne-Soveri; Iris Chi; Jean-Noel Du Pasquier; Ruedi Gilgen; Naoki Ikegami; Vincent Mor Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Andrea D Foebel; John P Hirdes; George A Heckman; Marie-Jeanne Kergoat; Scott Patten; Ruth Ann Marrie Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: John P Hirdes; Gunnar Ljunggren; John N Morris; Dinnus H M Frijters; Harriet Finne Soveri; Len Gray; Magnus Björkgren; Reudi Gilgen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2008-12-30 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Carole A Estabrooks; Janet E Squires; Greta G Cummings; Gary F Teare; Peter G Norton Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-11 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Greta G Cummings; R Colin Reid; Carole A Estabrooks; Peter G Norton; Garnet E Cummings; Brian H Rowe; Stephanie L Abel; Laura Bissell; Joan L Bottorff; Carole A Robinson; Adrian Wagg; Jacques S Lee; Susan L Lynch; Elmabrok Masaoud Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Leonard C Gray; Katherine Berg; Brant E Fries; Jean-Claude Henrard; John P Hirdes; Knight Steel; John N Morris Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 2.655