Efficiency pattern analysis (EPA) is a technique pro posed for use in medical rehabilitation that links patient functional gain to resource use, as approximated by length of stay (LOS), after adjusting for initial severity. The Functional Independence Measure version of the Function Related Groups (FIM-FRGs) is used to adjust for patient severity and to define the efficiency groups. The efficiency groups are based on LOS and functional gain cut point values in the statistical distribution that are above, below, or within the national interquartile range for each of 53 FRGs. Data from 32,494 patients discharged in 1990 from 123 rehabilitation facilities were used. EPA is a simple way to monitor change in functional gain in response to transformations in health care practices and resource availability. The technique could also provide individual facilities with a means to evaluate treatment efficiencies across time and to com pare patterns of LOS and functional gain to national norms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LaPlante MPThe demographics of disability. Milbank Q1991;69(suppl 1-2):55-77.
2.
Cross LLAmericans with disabilities act: meeting the requirements. AAOHN J1992;40:284-286.
3.
Kraus LE, Stoddard S.Chartbook on Disability in the United States. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1989.
4.
Kottke FJ, Lehman JFPreface. In: Kottke FJ, Lehman JF, eds. Krusen's Handbook of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 4th Ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1990.
5.
Kelly JTEvaluating quality performance in alternative health care delivery systems: A critical challenge. JAMA1994;271: 1620-1621.
6.
Hosek S., Kane R., Carney M., et al. Charges and outcomes for rehabilitative care. in: Implications for the Prospective Payment System. The RAND Publication Series. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corp., 1986.
7.
Stineman MG, Escarce JE, Goin JE, et al. A case mix classification system for medical rehabilitation . Med Care1994;32:366-379.
8.
Harada N., Kominski G., Sofaer S.Development of a resource-based classification scheme for rehabilitation. Inquiry1993;30:50-63.
9.
Harada N., Sofaer S., Kominski G.Functional status outcomes in rehabilitation: implications for prospective payment. Med Care1993;31:345-357.
10.
Heinemann AW , Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger CVPrediction of rehabilitation outcome with disability measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994;75:133-143.
11.
Stineman MG , Maislin G., Williams SVApplying quantitative methods to the prediction of full functional recovery in adult rehabilitation patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993;74:787-795. 12. Center for Functional Assessment Research and the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. GUIDE for Use of the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation including the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Version 3.1. Buffalo, NY: Research Foundation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1990.
12.
Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA, et al. Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation . Top Geriatr Rehabil1986;1:59-74.
13.
Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, et al. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ, ed. Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurement. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co., 1987.
14.
Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, et al. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation . In Eisenberg MG, Grzesiak RC, eds. Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.
15.
Heinemann AW, Hamilton BB, Granger CV, et al. Rating Scale Analysis of Functional Assessment Measures. Final Report. Chicago: Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, 1991.
16.
Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler R., et al. Interrater reliability of the 7-level functional independence measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med1994:26:115-199.
17.
Stineman MG, Goin JE, Hamilton BB, et al. Applying the Function Related Groups to facility management in comprehensive rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993;74:1255.
18.
Stineman MG, Escarce JJAnalysis of case mix and the prediction of resource use in medical rehabilitation . Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am1993;4:451-461.
19.
Kalra L.Does age affect benefits of stroke unit rehabilitation? Stroke1994:24:346-351.
20.
Stineman MG , Williams SVPredicting inpatient rehabilitation length of stay. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1990;71:881-887.
21.
Lave JR, Leinhardt S.The cost and length of a hospital stay. Inquiry1976;13:327-343.
22.
Ellwood PMOutcomes management. A technology of patient information. N Engl J Med1988;318:1549-1556.
23.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.A Guide to Establishing Programs for Assessing Outcomes in Clinical Settings. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission, 1994.
24.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.Primer on Indicator Development and Application. Measuring Quality in Health Care. Oakbrook Terrace, IL : Joint Commission, 1990.
25.
Kritchevsky SB, Simmons BPContinuous quality improvement: concepts and applications for physician care. JAMA1991 ;266: 1817-1823.
26.
Vladeck BC, Kramer PSCase mix measures: DRGs and alternatives. Annu Rev Public Health1988;9:333-359.
