Article

An appropriate nursing skill mix: survey of acuity systems in rehabilitation hospitals.

Rehabilitation nursing: the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses (Impact Factor: 0.78). 01/1993; 18(4):244-8. DOI: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.1993.tb00763.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In a descriptive study, freestanding rehabilitation hospitals were surveyed to determine which acuity systems were in use in 1988. A questionnaire was developed by the researcher and sent to 83 freestanding rehabilitation hospitals in the continental United States. The results of the study showed that no one acuity system was being used. Additional findings were that the majority of the rehabilitation hospitals are not for profit, all of the hospitals have some type of accreditation, and there seem to be enough rehabilitation beds in the United States. Staffing patterns of the hospitals revealed that registered nurses and nursing assistants were the type of staff used predominantly; licensed practical nurses were used least. Ninety-one percent of the hospitals reported having registered nurses with associate's degrees or bachelor of science degrees, and 88% reported having nurses who had earned a diploma. Primary nursing care was the type of nursing care delivered most often, although many of the hospitals were using more than one form of care. Staff assignment was based on both census and acuity.

1 Bookmark
 · 
109 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Development of a prototype patient classification (PCS) instrument designed specifically for rehabilitation patients is the focus of this article. The process of instrument development is discussed, as well as strategies used in implementing the PCS. These strategies include: staff education, management support, data collection, data analysis--including the development of supporting information systems, and ongoing use of the rehabilitation PCS. Changes engendered by implementation of the PCS also are discussed.
    JONA The Journal of Nursing Administration 04/1998; 28(3):35-43. · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The complexity and mix of rehabilitation patients varies across clinicians and institutions. Comparisons of outcomes across providers must therefore adjust for differences in risk factors across patient populations. Research on risk adjustment has generally focused on acute care hospital outcomes, although techniques for risk adjusting financial outcomes are fairly well developed in rehabilitation, primarily to support Medicare and other prospective payment systems. This article reviews important methodologic issues in risk adjusting rehabilitation outcomes in observational studies of routine clinical practice or for management, such as assessing quality or costs of care. Risk adjusting rehabilitation outcomes is more difficult than risk adjusting other clinical results, such as outcomes of many acute care services. At the outset, characterizing rehabilitation interventions is frequently difficult. Furthermore, outcomes are diverse and depend on myriad factors, including patients' physical and cognitive abilities, underlying medical diseases, sensory and emotional factors, willingness to participate in care, and supportive environments. No risk-adjustment approach can control for every factor affecting outcomes of care. Knowing which risk factors are missing helps guide interpretation of the results and determines how well risk-adjusted outcomes fairly compare providers or treatments.
    American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 05/2004; 83(4):316-26. · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We undertook to develop a tool based on the FIM instrument to predict the number of nursing hours required to care for stroke patients in an acute inpatient rehabilitation program. The initial study to evaluate the feasibility of using the FIM instrument revealed that the total FIM score had a strong inverse relation to the level of care indicated by the Patient Care Index (PCI) at days 1, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 of rehabilitation (rs = -.76 to -.87). The results warranted continued investigation of the FIM instrument as a guide for nurse staffing decisions. Based on data from the initial study, five categories of FIM score ranges were designated that demonstrated the most accuracy of placing patients at the correct level of care. Special care considerations unique to institutional settings were identified and incorporated into the tool's final format, as were the calculations to determine the amount of assistance needed. The study reported here was undertaken to evaluate the level of care indicated by the adapted tool, compared with that of the PCI, in a sample of 67 stroke admissions. Spearman correlations revealed a moderate relationship (rs = .49 to .54) between the amount of care determined by the Patient Acuity and Staffing tool and through the PCI at the first, second, and third team meetings. We conclude that the system is an effective, efficient guide for scheduling nurse staffing on the stroke rehabilitation unit.
    Rehabilitation nursing: the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses 05/2001; 26(3):108-13. · 0.78 Impact Factor