With the move toward rate-based funding for chronic care hospitals, a case mix measure that describes chronic care patients in a valid and reliable manner is needed. A pilot study was done in Ontario to evaluate the effectiveness of three classification systems that have been implemented elsewhere. It was recommended that work continue on the basis that Ontario will implement the Resource Utilization Groups (RUG-III) system for activity measurement and funding of chronic care patients.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LichtMR and KleinEA. Early hospital discharge after radical retropubic prostatectomy: Impact on cost and complication rate. Urology1994; 44(5): 700–704.
2.
WeerasooriyaHRMurdockCJHarrisAH, and DavisMJ. The cost-effectiveness of treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias related to an accessory atrioventricular pathway: Comparison of catheter ablation, surgical division and medical treatment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine1994; 24(2): 161–167.
3.
Alberta Health.Alberta Resident Classification System for Long Term Care Facilities: Instructions for Completing the Resident Classification Form. Edmonton, Alberta Health, 1988.
4.
FriesBE and CooneyLM. Resource Utilization Groups: A patient classification system for long term care. Medical Care1985; 23: 100–122.
5.
FriesBESchneiderDPFoleyWJGavazziMBurkeR, and CorneliusE. Refining a case mix measure for nursing homes: Resource Utilization Groups (RUG-III). Medical Care1994; 32(6): 668–685.
6.
StinemanMGEscarceJJGoinJEHamiltonBBGrangerCV, and WilliamsSV. A case mix classification system for medical rehabilitation. Medical Care1994; 32(4): 366–379.
7.
The Center for Functional Assessment Research and the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation including the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Version 3.1. Buffalo, Research Foundation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1990.
8.
BotzCKBestardSDemarayM, and MolloyG. Resource Utilization Groups (RUGs): Defining continuing care, rehabilitation and nursing home case mix in Canada. Healthcare Management Forum1993; 6(4): 5–11.
9.
Ontario Ministry of Health, Community Health and Support Services Division.1992 Levels of Care Classification — Resident Classification System. Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Health, 1993.
10.
HawesCMorrisJNPhillipsCDMorVFriesBE, and NonemakerS. Reliability estimates for the Minimum Data Set for nursing home resident assessment and care screening (MDS). The Gerontologist1995; 35(2): 172–178.
11.
Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellog.Final Report: Pilot Study of the Application of the Alberta Long Term Care Classification Form in Ontario. Edmonton, 1991.
12.
CarpenterGIMainA, and TurnerGF. Casemix for the elderly inpatient: Resource Utilization Groups (RUGs) Validation Project. Age and Ageing1995; 24(1): 5–13.
13.
IkegamiNFriesBETakagiYIkedaS, and IbeT. Applying RUG-III in Japanese long term care facilities. The Gerontologist1994; 34(5): 628–639.
14.
OuslanderJG. Maximizing the minimum data set. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society1994; 42: 1212–1213.
15.
SchleutzMD. The minimum data set and levels of prevention in the long term care facility. Geriatric Nursing1993; 14(2): 79–83.
