|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK
Lynne Turner-Stokes
Regional Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow
Tabitha Turner-Stokes
Regional Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow
Objective: To ascertain which standardized instruments are currently most commonly used as outcome measures for rehabilitation in routine clinical practice in the UK.
Design: The study used a postal questionnaire which was sent out to members of two major societies of rehabilitation professionals in the UK.
Results: Of 182 rehabilitation centres represented by respondents, 140 (77%) collected at least one standardized measure and 42 did not. Principal reasons for not recording measures were lack of time and not knowing what to collect. As had been anticipated, a very wide range of different measures were used by different centres, however some clear favourites emerged including the 10 m Walk, the Motricity Index and the Nine-hole Peg Test. One hundred and twenty-three centres used one or more global disability measure of which the commonest were the Barthel Index or one of its modifications and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and/or Functional Assessment Method (FAM). Among units that used handicap or extended activities of daily living (EADL) scales, the Nottingham EADL, the London Handicap Scale and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-22 or 12) were most popular. Outside neurorehabilitation, the Harold Wood/Stanmore mobility grades were used by 10/18 amputee rehabilitation centres and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was used by 15/48 units providing musculoskeletal rehabilitation.
Conclusions: It is clear that no one measure is suitable in all settings and services, but the most popular measures from this survey may reasonably form the basis for a 'basket of recommended instruments' that may help to guide units wishing to collect outcome data but not knowing which to choose.
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 11, No. 4,
306-313 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/026921559701100407
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
R. Van Peppen, M. Schuurmans, E. Stutterheim, E. Lindeman, and N. Van Meeteren
Promoting the use of outcome measures by an educational programme for physiotherapists in stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Clinical Rehabilitation,
November 1, 2009;
23(11):
1005 - 1017.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. U Jette, J. Halbert, C. Iverson, E. Miceli, and P. Shah
Use of Standardized Outcome Measures in Physical Therapist Practice: Perceptions and Applications
Physical Therapy,
February 1, 2009;
89(2):
125 - 135.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Skinner and L. Turner-Stokes
The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK
Clinical Rehabilitation,
July 1, 2006;
20(7):
609 - 615.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Turner-Stokes, S Paul, and H Williams
Efficiency of specialist rehabilitation in reducing dependency and costs of continuing care for adults with complex acquired brain injuries
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry,
May 1, 2006;
77(5):
634 - 639.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T J. Bovend'Eerdt, H Dawes, H Johansen-Berg, and D T Wade
Evaluation of the Modifid Jebsen Test of Hand Function and the University of Maryland Arm Questionnaire for Stroke
Clinical Rehabilitation,
February 1, 2004;
18(2):
195 - 202.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P Feys, M Duportail, D Kos, P Van Aschand, and P Ketelaer
Validity of the TEMPA for the measurement of upper limb function in multiple sclerosis
Clinical Rehabilitation,
February 1, 2002;
16(2):
166 - 173.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B S Panesar, P Morrison, and J Hunter
A comparison of three measures of progress in early lower limb amputee rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation,
February 1, 2001;
15(2):
157 - 171.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M.J. van Wijck, A. D. Pandyan, G. R Johnson, and M. P. Barnes
Assessing Motor Deficits in Neurological Rehabilitation: Patterns of Instrument Usage
Neurorehabil Neural Repair,
January 1, 2001;
15(1):
23 - 30.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Turner-Stokes, H. Williams, R. Abraham, and S. Duckett
Clinical standards for inpatient specialist rehabilitation services in the UK
Clinical Rehabilitation,
May 1, 2000;
14(5):
468 - 480.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Turner-Stokes
Outcome measurement in brain injury rehabilitation - towards a common language
Clinical Rehabilitation,
April 1, 1999;
13(4):
273 - 275.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Turner-Stokes, K. Nyein, T. Turner-Stokes, and C. Gatehouse
The UK FIM+FAM: development and evaluation
Clinical Rehabilitation,
April 1, 1999;
13(4):
277 - 287.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Nyein, L. Mcmichael, and L. Turner-Stokes
Can a Barthel score be derived from the FIM?
Clinical Rehabilitation,
January 1, 1999;
13(1):
56 - 63.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Rice-Oxley and L. Turner-Stokes
Effectiveness of brain injury rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation,
January 1, 1999;
13(1_suppl):
7 - 24.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Kent and N. Fyfe
Effectiveness of rehabilitation following amputation
Clinical Rehabilitation,
January 1, 1999;
13(1_suppl):
43 - 50.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
