Affirming the Value of the Resident Assessment Instrument: Minimum Data Set Version 2.0 for Nursing Home Decision-Making and Quality Improvement
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Crosswalks
FIM Item | MDS Item |
---|---|
Eating | Eating—Self Performance |
Transfers: Bed, Chair, Wheelchair | Transferring—Self Performance |
Toileting | Toilet Use—Self Performance |
Bathing | Bathing—Self Performance |
More dependent of: Dressing Upper Body, Dressing Lower Body | Dressing—Self Performance |
Grooming | Personal Hygiene—Self Performance |
Bladder Management | Bladder Continence |
Bowel Management | Bowel Continence |
Locomotion: Walk/Wheelchair | Walk in Room |
2.3. Correlations
FIM Items & Subscales | 0–6 Days | 7–13 Days | 14–20 Days | 21–27 Days | 28–34 Days | 35–41 Days | >41 Days | All Days |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FIM and V-RAI | ||||||||
n = 57 | n = 60 | n = 60 | n = 50 | n = 46 | n = 24 | n = 46 | n = 343 | |
Motor Subscale (8 Items) | 0.78 ‡ | 0.60 ‡ | 0.64 ‡ | 0.64 ‡ | 0.76 ‡ | 0.81 ‡ | 0.72 ‡ | 0.70 ‡ |
ADL Subscale (6 Items) | 0.83 ‡ | 0.75 ‡ | 0.74 ‡ | 0.73 ‡ | 0.82 ‡ | 0.84 ‡ | 0.77 ‡ | 0.78 ‡ |
Eating | 0.58 ‡ | 0.31 * | 0.52 ‡ | 0.53 ‡ | 0.66 ‡ | 0.38 | 0.58 ‡ | 0.53 ‡ |
Transfers | 0.47 ‡ | 0.52 ‡ | 0.56 ‡ | 0.42 † | 0.59 ‡ | 0.46 * | 0.65 ‡ | 0.52 ‡ |
Toileting | 0.67 ‡ | 0.44 ‡ | 0.33 † | 0.64 ‡ | 0.71 ‡ | 0.87 ‡ | 0.61 ‡ | 0.60 ‡ |
Bathing | 0.53 ‡ | −0.14 | −0.07 | 0.21 | 0.36 * | 0.33 | 0.32 * | 0.22 ‡ |
Dressing | 0.58 ‡ | 0.44 ‡ | 0.50 ‡ | 0.36 * | 0.49 † | 0.75 ‡ | 0.47 † | 0.50 ‡ |
Grooming | 0.42 † | 0.40 † | 0.43 † | 0.50 ‡ | 0.53 ‡ | 0.62 † | 0.34 * | 0.45 ‡ |
Bladder Mgmt. | 0.58 ‡ | 0.52 ‡ | 0.63 ‡ | 0.78 ‡ | 0.55 ‡ | 0.53 † | 0.66 ‡ | 0.61 ‡ |
Bowel Mgmt. | 0.47 ‡ | 0.56 ‡ | 0.51 ‡ | 0.48 ‡ | 0.41 † | 0.61 † | 0.45 † | 0.49 ‡ |
Walk-Wheelchair | 0.53 ‡ | 0.56 ‡ | 0.45 ‡ | 0.63 ‡ | 0.53 ‡ | 0.58 † | 0.23 | 0.50 ‡ |
FIM and W-RAI | ||||||||
n = 59 | n = 64 | n = 63 | n = 53 | n = 48 | n = 28 | n = 47 | n = 362 | |
Motor Subscale (8 Items) | 0.69 ‡ | 0.52 ‡ | 0.40 ‡ | 0.58 ‡ | 0.75 ‡ | 0.64 ‡ | 0.67 ‡ | 0.61 ‡ |
ADL Subscale (6 Items) | 0.71 ‡ | 0.62 ‡ | 0.49 ‡ | 0.62 ‡ | 0.78 ‡ | 0.68 ‡ | 0.74 ‡ | 0.67 ‡ |
Eating | 0.57 ‡ | 0.36 † | 0.49 ‡ | 0.51 ‡ | 0.65 ‡ | 0.32 | 0.55 ‡ | 0.50 ‡ |
Transfers | 0.50 ‡ | 0.50 ‡ | 0.46 ‡ | 0.37 † | 0.60 ‡ | 0.41 * | 0.61 ‡ | 0.48 ‡ |
Toileting | 0.57 ‡ | 0.34 † | 0.24 | 0.56 ‡ | 0.65 ‡ | 0.71 ‡ | 0.61 ‡ | 0.54 ‡ |
Bathing | 0.42 † | −0.13 | 0.07 | 0.22 | 0.38 † | 0.23 | 0.38 † | 0.19 ‡ |
Dressing | 0.55 ‡ | 0.36 † | 0.34† | 0.52 ‡ | 0.57 ‡ | 0.82 ‡ | 0.48 † | 0.50 ‡ |
Grooming | 0.34 † | 0.32 † | 0.27 * | 0.41 † | 0.48 † | 0.43 * | 0.23 | 0.36 ‡ |
Bladder Mgmt. | 0.44 † | 0.45 ‡ | 0.46 ‡ | 0.56 ‡ | 0.51 ‡ | 0.36 | 0.62 ‡ | 0.50 ‡ |
Bowel Mgmt. | 0.40 † | 0.45 ‡ | 0.48 ‡ | 0.39 † | 0.40 † | 0.55 † | 0.44 † | 0.44 ‡ |
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Parmelee, P.E.; Bowen, S.E.; Ross, A.; Brown, H.; Huff, J. “Sometimes people don’t fit in boxes”: Attitudes toward the minimum data set among clinical leadership in VA nursing homes. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2009, 10, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hutchinson, A.M.; Milke, D.L.; Maisey, S.; Johnson, C.; Squires, J.E.; Teare, G.; Estabrooks, C.A. The Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set 2.0 quality indicators: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2010, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zimmerman, D.R. Improving nursing home quality of care through outcomes data: The MDS quality indicators. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2003, 18, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carpenter, G.I.; Hasties, C.L.; Morris, J.N.; Fries, B.E.; Ankri, J. Measuring change in activities of daily living in nursing home residents with moderate to severe cognitive impairment. BMC Geriatr. 2006, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Glenny, C.; Stolee, P. Comparing the functional independence measure and the interRAI/MDS for use in the functional assessment of older adults: A review of the literature. BMC Geriatr. 2009, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Velozo, C.A.; Byers, K.L.; Wang, Y.; Joseph, B.R. Translating measures across the continuum of care: Using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2007, 44, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, B.C.; Li, Y.; Fries, B.E.; Warren, R.L. Predicting patient scores between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set: Development and performance of a FIM-MDS “crosswalk”. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1997, 78, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slaughter, S.E.; Wagg, A.S.; Jones, C.A.; Schopflocher, D.; Ickerts, C.; Bampton, E.; Jantz, A.; Milke, D.; Schalm, C.; Lycar, C.; et al. Mobility of vulnerable elders study: Effect of the sit-to-stand activity on mobility, function and quality of life. JAMDA 2015, 16, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slaughter, S.E.; Estabrooks, C.A.; Jones, C.A.; Wagg, A.S. Mobility of vulnerable elders (MOVE): Study protocol to evaluate the implementation and outcomes of a mobility intervention in long-term care facilities. BMC Geriatr. 2011, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hawes, C.; Fries, B.E.; James, M.L.; Guihan, M. Prospects and pitfalls: Use of the RAI-HC assessment by the Department of Veterans Affairs for home care clients. Gerontologist 2007, 47, 378–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Drummond, L.S.; Slaughter, S.E.; Jones, C.A.; Wagg, A.S. Affirming the Value of the Resident Assessment Instrument: Minimum Data Set Version 2.0 for Nursing Home Decision-Making and Quality Improvement. Healthcare 2015, 3, 659-665. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare3030659
Drummond LS, Slaughter SE, Jones CA, Wagg AS. Affirming the Value of the Resident Assessment Instrument: Minimum Data Set Version 2.0 for Nursing Home Decision-Making and Quality Improvement. Healthcare. 2015; 3(3):659-665. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare3030659
Chicago/Turabian StyleDrummond, Lindsay S., Susan E. Slaughter, C. Allyson Jones, and Adrian S. Wagg. 2015. "Affirming the Value of the Resident Assessment Instrument: Minimum Data Set Version 2.0 for Nursing Home Decision-Making and Quality Improvement" Healthcare 3, no. 3: 659-665. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare3030659