• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
A comparison of the level of care predictions of six long-term care patient assessment systems.六种长期护理患者评估系统的护理水平预测比较。
Am J Public Health. 1980 Nov;70(11):1152-61. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.11.1152.
2
Residential care facilities: a key sector in the spectrum of long-term care providers in the United States.寄宿护理机构:美国长期护理服务提供商体系中的一个关键领域。
NCHS Data Brief. 2011 Dec(78):1-8.
3
Validation and use of resource utilization groups as a case-mix measure for long-term care.资源利用组作为长期护理病例组合指标的验证与应用。
Med Care. 1985 Feb;23(2):123-32. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198502000-00003.
4
Predicting 3-year mortality and admission to acute-care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and long-term care facilities in Medicare beneficiaries.预测 Medicare 受益人的 3 年死亡率和入住急性护理医院、熟练护理设施和长期护理设施的情况。
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017 Nov;73:248-256. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.005. Epub 2017 Aug 24.
5
Deinstitutionalization of the elderly mentally ill: factors affecting discharge to alternative living arrangements.
Gerontologist. 1988 Oct;28(5):653-8. doi: 10.1093/geront/28.5.653.
6
Data for long-term care planning by Health Systems Agencies.卫生系统机构用于长期护理规划的数据。
Am J Public Health. 1980 Nov;70(11):1194-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.11.1194.
7
Assessment of needs of adults with developmental disabilities in skilled nursing and intermediate care facilities in Illinois.
Ment Retard. 1991 Aug;29(4):223-31.
8
Case-mix and resource use in long-term care.
Med Care. 1985 Apr;23(4):296-309. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198504000-00002.
9
Balancing institutional and community-based care: why some older persons can age successfully at home while others require residential long-term care.平衡机构护理和社区护理:为何有些老年人能在家中成功养老,而另一些人则需要长期住院护理。
Healthc Q. 2009;12(2):95-105. doi: 10.12927/hcq.2009.3974.
10
Health care and personal care needs among residents in nursing homes, group homes, and congregate housing in Japan: why does transition occur, and where can the frail elderly establish a permanent residence?日本养老院、集体之家和集中式住房居民的医疗保健和个人护理需求:为什么会发生转移,以及体弱老年人可以在哪里建立永久住所?
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Jan;15(1):76.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.07.006. Epub 2013 Aug 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Implementing Level of Care Criteria for Supported Housing in One Urban County.
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017 Apr;44(2):289-295. doi: 10.1007/s11414-016-9501-3.
2
Using the Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health (RAI-MH) to determine levels of care for individuals with serious mental illness.使用居民评估工具-心理健康(RAI-MH)来确定严重精神疾病患者的护理级别。
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2008 Jan;35(1):60-70. doi: 10.1007/s11414-007-9088-9. Epub 2007 Oct 26.
3
Simulating the impact of case-mix adjusted hospice rates.模拟病例组合调整后的临终关怀费率的影响。
Health Care Financ Rev. 1986 Winter;8(2):53-64.
4
Assessment of level of care: implications of interrater reliability on health policy.护理水平评估:评分者间信度对卫生政策的影响
Health Care Financ Rev. 1984 Winter;6(2):43-51.
5
Nursing home pre- admission screening: a review of state programs.养老院入院前筛查:对各州项目的综述
Health Care Financ Rev. 1982 Mar;3(3):75-87.
6
A community ability scale for chronically mentally ill consumers: Part I. Reliability and validity.慢性精神病患者社区能力量表:第一部分。信度与效度。
Community Ment Health J. 1994 Aug;30(4):363-83. doi: 10.1007/BF02207489.
7
Rates, patterns, causes, and costs of hospitalization of nursing home residents: a population-based study.养老院居民的住院率、模式、原因及费用:一项基于人群的研究。
Am J Public Health. 1994 Oct;84(10):1615-20. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.10.1615.
8
Discharge-ready patients who remain hospitalized: a re-emerging problem for mental health services.
Psychiatr Q. 1995 Spring;66(1):63-85. doi: 10.1007/BF02238716.
9
A validity study of the St. Louis Inventory of Community Living Skills.《圣路易斯社区生活技能量表》的效度研究
Community Ment Health J. 1995 Aug;31(4):369-77. doi: 10.1007/BF02207522.
10
Reliability of level of care decisions in a long-term care program.
J Community Health. 1982 Winter;8(2):102-9. doi: 10.1007/BF01326554.

六种长期护理患者评估系统的护理水平预测比较。

A comparison of the level of care predictions of six long-term care patient assessment systems.

作者信息

Foley W J, Schneider D P

出版信息

Am J Public Health. 1980 Nov;70(11):1152-61. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.11.1152.

DOI:10.2105/ajph.70.11.1152
PMID:6775545
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1619591/
Abstract

Six patient assessment systems that have explicit decision rules for replicating team judgments on level of care patient placement were selected for analysis. The six were selected because of their origin, logic or decision diversity, and their ability to be programmed on a computer (i.e., explicit decision rules). Six hundred seventy-nine patient descriptor profiles were collected on patients currently in New York State nursing homes. These patients were then "placed" by level of care for each assessment system. The probability of agreement of placement between pairs of assessment systems ranges from 38 per cent to 91 per cent. Among SNF (skilled nursing facility) patients only, the level of agreement drops as low as 39 per cent. Uniformity of placement criteria is, in fact, the exception rather than the rule. A patient's placement is quite dependent on both his/her state of residence and his/her health status. The effect of differences in placement decisions has major implications for the patients being placed and for the cost of LTC (long-term care). This analysis was confined to systems that had a well developed set of guidelines--the situation is likely to be even more variable where guidelines are vaguely stated.

摘要

选择了六个患者评估系统进行分析,这些系统具有明确的决策规则,用于在患者护理级别安置方面复制团队判断。选择这六个系统是基于它们的起源、逻辑或决策多样性,以及在计算机上进行编程的能力(即明确的决策规则)。收集了纽约州养老院中现有患者的679份患者描述档案。然后,针对每个评估系统,根据护理级别对这些患者进行“安置”。评估系统两两之间安置意见一致的概率在38%至91%之间。仅在熟练护理机构(SNF)的患者中,意见一致程度低至39%。事实上,安置标准的一致性是例外而非惯例。患者的安置很大程度上取决于其居住州和健康状况。安置决策差异的影响对被安置患者和长期护理(LTC)成本都有重大影响。该分析仅限于具有完善准则集的系统——在准则表述模糊的情况下,情况可能更加多变。