Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:10:15.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Outcome Measurement in Medical Rehabilitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Carl V. Granger  and
Carol M. Brownscheidle
Carl V. Granger
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Buffalo
Carol M. Brownscheidle
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Buffalo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

The Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation (UDSmr) provides a method for uniform assessment of the severity of patient disability and the outcomes of medical rehabilitative care. The effectiveness and efficiency of medical rehabilitation services may be analyzed using the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the functional assessment component of the UDS, and other data. Program evaluation models based on the UDSMR and the FIM are useful for measuring resource cost of disability.

Type
Special Section: Technology and Disability
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 262 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Granger, C. V., Cotter, A. C., Hamilton, B. B., & Fiedler, R. C.Functional assessment scales: A study of persons after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1993, 74, 133–38.Google Scholar
2.Granger, C. V., Cotter, A. C., Hamilton, B. B., et al. Functional assessment scales: A study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1990, 71, 870–75.Google Scholar
3.Granger, C. V., & Hamilton, B. B.The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1992. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1994, 73, 51–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (Adult FIM), version 4.0. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo, 1993.Google Scholar
5.Hamilton, B. B., Laughlin, J. A., Siebler, R. C., & Granger, C. V.Interrater reliability of the seven-level functional independence measure. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 1994, 26, 115–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Heinemann, A. W., Linacre, J. M., Wright, B. D., et al. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1994, 75, 133–43.Google Scholar
7.Linacre, J. M., Heinemann, A. W., Wright, B. D., et al. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1994, 75, 127–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Patterson, C. H., England, B., & Glass, R. M. What is quality rehabilitation? In England, B. & Glass, R. M. (eds.), Quality rehabilitation: Results-oriented patient care. Chicago: American Hospital Publishing, Inc., 1989, 1–9.Google Scholar
9.Stineman, M. G., & Escarce, J. J. Analysis of case mix and the prediction of resource use in medical rehabilitation. In Granger, C. V. & Gresham, G. E. (eds.), Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America, vol. 4(3). hiladelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1993, 451–61.Google Scholar
10.Stineman, M. G., Escarce, J. J., Goin, J. E., et al. A case mix classification system for medical rehabilitation. Medical Care, 1994, 32, 366–79.Google Scholar
11.Wilkerson, D., Batavia, A. I., & DeJong, G.The use of functional status measures for payment of medical rehabilitation services. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1991, 73, 111–20.Google Scholar