Jette Alan M, Haley Stephen M, Ni Pengsheng
Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Health Care Financ Rev. 2003 Spring;24(3):13-24.
There is a growing health policy mandate for comprehensive monitoring of functional outcomes across post-acute care (PAC) settings. This article presents an empirical comparison of four functional outcome instruments used in PAC with respect to their content, breadth of coverage, and measurement precision. Results illustrate limitations in the range of content, breadth of coverage, and measurement precision in each outcome instrument. None appears well-equipped to meet the challenge of monitoring quality and functional outcomes across settings where PAC is provided. Limitations in existing assessment methodology has stimulated the development of more comprehensive outcome assessment systems specifically for monitoring the quality of services provided to PAC patients.
对于在急性后护理（PAC）环境中对功能结局进行全面监测，卫生政策方面的要求日益增加。本文对PAC中使用的四种功能结局工具在内容、覆盖范围广度和测量精度方面进行了实证比较。结果表明每种结局工具在内容范围、覆盖范围广度和测量精度方面都存在局限性。似乎没有一种工具能很好地应对在提供PAC的各个环境中监测质量和功能结局的挑战。现有评估方法的局限性促使人们开发更全面的结局评估系统，专门用于监测为PAC患者提供的服务质量。
