Botz C K, Bestard S, Demaray M, Molloy G
St. Joseph's Health Centre, London, Ontario.
Healthc Manage Forum. 1993 Winter;6(4):5-19. doi: 10.1016/S0840-4704(10)61129-5.
The two major purposes of this study were: (1) to evaluate Resource Utilization Groups (RUGs III) as a unified method for classifying all residential, chronic care and rehabilitation patients at the St. Joseph's Health Centre, London, and (2) to compare the potential funding implications of RUGs and other patient/resident classification systems. RUGs were used to classify a total of 336 patients/residents in residential, extended care, chronic care and rehabilitation beds at the Health Centre. Patients were also concurrently classified according to the Alberta Long Term Care Classification System and the Medicus Long Term Care System. Results show that RUGs provide relatively more credit for higher acuity patients than do the Alberta or Medicus systems. If used as a basis for funding, chronic care and rehabilitation hospitals would be entitled to more funding (relative to residential/nursing homes) under RUGs than under the other two patient classification mechanisms.
（1）评估资源利用分组（RUGs III）作为一种统一方法，用于对伦敦圣约瑟夫医疗中心的所有住院、长期护理和康复患者进行分类；（2）比较RUGs与其他患者/居民分类系统在潜在资金方面的影响。RUGs被用于对该医疗中心住院、长期护理、慢性护理和康复床位的总共336名患者/居民进行分类。患者同时还根据艾伯塔省长期护理分类系统和Medicus长期护理系统进行分类。结果表明，与艾伯塔省或Medicus系统相比，RUGs为病情较重的患者提供了相对更多的分数。如果将其用作资金分配的基础，那么与其他两种患者分类机制相比，慢性护理和康复医院在RUGs下将有权获得更多资金（相对于住宅/疗养院）。
