Prospects and Pitfalls: Use of the RAI-HC Assessment by the Department of Veterans Affairs for Home Care Clients

Purpose: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has adopted two functional assessment systems that guide care planning: one for nursing home residents (the Resident Assessment Instrument [RAI]) and a compatible one for home care clients (RAI-HC). The purpose of this article is to describe the RAI-H...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Gerontologist 2007-06, Vol.47 (3), p.378-387
Hauptverfasser: Hawes, Catherine, Fries, Brant E., James, Mary L., Guihan, Marylou
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 387
container_issue 3
container_start_page 378
container_title The Gerontologist
container_volume 47
creator Hawes, Catherine
Fries, Brant E.
James, Mary L.
Guihan, Marylou
description Purpose: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has adopted two functional assessment systems that guide care planning: one for nursing home residents (the Resident Assessment Instrument [RAI]) and a compatible one for home care clients (RAI-HC). The purpose of this article is to describe the RAI-HC (often referred to as the Minimum Data Set–Home Care or MDS-HC) and its uses and offer lessons learned from implementation experiences in other settings. Design and Methods: We reviewed implementation challenges associated both with the RAI and the RAI-HC in the United States, Canada, and other adopter countries, and drew on these to suggest lessons for the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as other entities implementing the RAI-HC. Results: Beyond its clinical utility, there are a number of evidence-based uses for the assessment system. The resident-level data can be aggregated and analyzed, and scales identify clinical conditions and risk for various types of negative outcomes. In addition, the data can be used for other programmatic and research purposes, such as determining eligibility, setting payment rates for contract care, and evaluating clinical interventions. At the same time, there are a number of implementation challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs and other organizations may face. Implications: Policy makers and program managers in any setting, including state long-term-care programs, who wish to implement an assessment system must anticipate and address a variety of implementation problems with a clear and consistent message from key leadership, adequate training and clinical support for assessors, and appropriate planning and resources for data systems.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/geront/47.3.378
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70628537</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ768956</ericid><sourcerecordid>61759315</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3998-a99860e0bf227bc34d6b825378232033b2690e3c0670050f2de6ca818c7f7d313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1v1DAQxS0EotvCmQtCFgdu2fVHYjvctkvpFrVihbYI9WI5yRhS8oUnK7X_Pd5mVSQucBnLfj8_e-YR8oqzOWe5XHyH0HfjItVzOZfaPCEzrjOTZDLlT8mMMa6SnHF5RI4Rb1ncC6Gfk6MIqYwzMSPDJvQ4QDkidV1FN_XoXdPge3qNQHtPxx9AvywvkvWKLhEBsYVupMX9g_ABBhfGh5OIfoURguuQLr13dUDq-0DXfQt05UIsTR1BfEGexRcQXh7WE3L98Wy7WieXn88vVsvLpJR5bhIXi2LACh9_XJQyrVRhRBZ7FFIwKQuhcgayZEozljEvKlClM9yU2utKcnlC3k2-Q-h_7QBH29ZYQtO4DvodWs2UMNHvn6CKw8olz_4DTLkwfO_49i_wtt-FLnZrBY9TN0LvocUElTEADODtEOrWhXvLmd1na6dsbaqttLHveOPNwXZXtFD94Q9hRuD1BECoy0f57JNWJs9UlJNJrnGEu0fdhZ9Waakzu_52Y083Znt-dXVjt_I3N8K2hQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>211028277</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prospects and Pitfalls: Use of the RAI-HC Assessment by the Department of Veterans Affairs for Home Care Clients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Hawes, Catherine ; Fries, Brant E. ; James, Mary L. ; Guihan, Marylou</creator><creatorcontrib>Hawes, Catherine ; Fries, Brant E. ; James, Mary L. ; Guihan, Marylou</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has adopted two functional assessment systems that guide care planning: one for nursing home residents (the Resident Assessment Instrument [RAI]) and a compatible one for home care clients (RAI-HC). The purpose of this article is to describe the RAI-HC (often referred to as the Minimum Data Set–Home Care or MDS-HC) and its uses and offer lessons learned from implementation experiences in other settings. Design and Methods: We reviewed implementation challenges associated both with the RAI and the RAI-HC in the United States, Canada, and other adopter countries, and drew on these to suggest lessons for the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as other entities implementing the RAI-HC. Results: Beyond its clinical utility, there are a number of evidence-based uses for the assessment system. The resident-level data can be aggregated and analyzed, and scales identify clinical conditions and risk for various types of negative outcomes. In addition, the data can be used for other programmatic and research purposes, such as determining eligibility, setting payment rates for contract care, and evaluating clinical interventions. At the same time, there are a number of implementation challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs and other organizations may face. Implications: Policy makers and program managers in any setting, including state long-term-care programs, who wish to implement an assessment system must anticipate and address a variety of implementation problems with a clear and consistent message from key leadership, adequate training and clinical support for assessors, and appropriate planning and resources for data systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-9013</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-5341</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/geront/47.3.378</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17565102</identifier><identifier>CODEN: GRNTA3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Access to Health Care ; Canada ; Evaluation ; Evaluation Methods ; Federal Programs ; Foreign Countries ; Government Agencies ; Health care policy ; Health Planning ; Health Services ; Home Care ; Home Care Services - standards ; Home health ; Home Health Aides ; Home health care ; Home Programs ; Homes for the Aged - standards ; Hospitals ; MDS-HC ; Medicare ; Minimum Data Set ; Nursing Homes ; Nursing Homes - standards ; Program Implementation ; Prospective payment systems ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods ; Residential Care ; Subacute care ; Surveys ; United States ; United States Department of Veterans Affairs ; Veterans</subject><ispartof>The Gerontologist, 2007-06, Vol.47 (3), p.378-387</ispartof><rights>Copyright Gerontological Society of America, Incorporated Jun 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3998-a99860e0bf227bc34d6b825378232033b2690e3c0670050f2de6ca818c7f7d313</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3998-a99860e0bf227bc34d6b825378232033b2690e3c0670050f2de6ca818c7f7d313</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,33774,33775</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ768956$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565102$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hawes, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fries, Brant E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>James, Mary L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guihan, Marylou</creatorcontrib><title>Prospects and Pitfalls: Use of the RAI-HC Assessment by the Department of Veterans Affairs for Home Care Clients</title><title>The Gerontologist</title><addtitle>The Gerontologist</addtitle><description>Purpose: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has adopted two functional assessment systems that guide care planning: one for nursing home residents (the Resident Assessment Instrument [RAI]) and a compatible one for home care clients (RAI-HC). The purpose of this article is to describe the RAI-HC (often referred to as the Minimum Data Set–Home Care or MDS-HC) and its uses and offer lessons learned from implementation experiences in other settings. Design and Methods: We reviewed implementation challenges associated both with the RAI and the RAI-HC in the United States, Canada, and other adopter countries, and drew on these to suggest lessons for the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as other entities implementing the RAI-HC. Results: Beyond its clinical utility, there are a number of evidence-based uses for the assessment system. The resident-level data can be aggregated and analyzed, and scales identify clinical conditions and risk for various types of negative outcomes. In addition, the data can be used for other programmatic and research purposes, such as determining eligibility, setting payment rates for contract care, and evaluating clinical interventions. At the same time, there are a number of implementation challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs and other organizations may face. Implications: Policy makers and program managers in any setting, including state long-term-care programs, who wish to implement an assessment system must anticipate and address a variety of implementation problems with a clear and consistent message from key leadership, adequate training and clinical support for assessors, and appropriate planning and resources for data systems.</description><subject>Access to Health Care</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Evaluation Methods</subject><subject>Federal Programs</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Government Agencies</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health Planning</subject><subject>Health Services</subject><subject>Home Care</subject><subject>Home Care Services - standards</subject><subject>Home health</subject><subject>Home Health Aides</subject><subject>Home health care</subject><subject>Home Programs</subject><subject>Homes for the Aged - standards</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>MDS-HC</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Minimum Data Set</subject><subject>Nursing Homes</subject><subject>Nursing Homes - standards</subject><subject>Program Implementation</subject><subject>Prospective payment systems</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods</subject><subject>Residential Care</subject><subject>Subacute care</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States Department of Veterans Affairs</subject><subject>Veterans</subject><issn>0016-9013</issn><issn>1758-5341</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1v1DAQxS0EotvCmQtCFgdu2fVHYjvctkvpFrVihbYI9WI5yRhS8oUnK7X_Pd5mVSQucBnLfj8_e-YR8oqzOWe5XHyH0HfjItVzOZfaPCEzrjOTZDLlT8mMMa6SnHF5RI4Rb1ncC6Gfk6MIqYwzMSPDJvQ4QDkidV1FN_XoXdPge3qNQHtPxx9AvywvkvWKLhEBsYVupMX9g_ABBhfGh5OIfoURguuQLr13dUDq-0DXfQt05UIsTR1BfEGexRcQXh7WE3L98Wy7WieXn88vVsvLpJR5bhIXi2LACh9_XJQyrVRhRBZ7FFIwKQuhcgayZEozljEvKlClM9yU2utKcnlC3k2-Q-h_7QBH29ZYQtO4DvodWs2UMNHvn6CKw8olz_4DTLkwfO_49i_wtt-FLnZrBY9TN0LvocUElTEADODtEOrWhXvLmd1na6dsbaqttLHveOPNwXZXtFD94Q9hRuD1BECoy0f57JNWJs9UlJNJrnGEu0fdhZ9Waakzu_52Y083Znt-dXVjt_I3N8K2hQ</recordid><startdate>200706</startdate><enddate>200706</enddate><creator>Hawes, Catherine</creator><creator>Fries, Brant E.</creator><creator>James, Mary L.</creator><creator>Guihan, Marylou</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Gerontological Society of America</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200706</creationdate><title>Prospects and Pitfalls: Use of the RAI-HC Assessment by the Department of Veterans Affairs for Home Care Clients</title><author>Hawes, Catherine ; Fries, Brant E. ; James, Mary L. ; Guihan, Marylou</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3998-a99860e0bf227bc34d6b825378232033b2690e3c0670050f2de6ca818c7f7d313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Access to Health Care</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Evaluation Methods</topic><topic>Federal Programs</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Government Agencies</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health Planning</topic><topic>Health Services</topic><topic>Home Care</topic><topic>Home Care Services - standards</topic><topic>Home health</topic><topic>Home Health Aides</topic><topic>Home health care</topic><topic>Home Programs</topic><topic>Homes for the Aged - standards</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>MDS-HC</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Minimum Data Set</topic><topic>Nursing Homes</topic><topic>Nursing Homes - standards</topic><topic>Program Implementation</topic><topic>Prospective payment systems</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods</topic><topic>Residential Care</topic><topic>Subacute care</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States Department of Veterans Affairs</topic><topic>Veterans</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hawes, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fries, Brant E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>James, Mary L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guihan, Marylou</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Gerontologist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hawes, Catherine</au><au>Fries, Brant E.</au><au>James, Mary L.</au><au>Guihan, Marylou</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ768956</ericid><atitle>Prospects and Pitfalls: Use of the RAI-HC Assessment by the Department of Veterans Affairs for Home Care Clients</atitle><jtitle>The Gerontologist</jtitle><addtitle>The Gerontologist</addtitle><date>2007-06</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>378</spage><epage>387</epage><pages>378-387</pages><issn>0016-9013</issn><eissn>1758-5341</eissn><coden>GRNTA3</coden><abstract>Purpose: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has adopted two functional assessment systems that guide care planning: one for nursing home residents (the Resident Assessment Instrument [RAI]) and a compatible one for home care clients (RAI-HC). The purpose of this article is to describe the RAI-HC (often referred to as the Minimum Data Set–Home Care or MDS-HC) and its uses and offer lessons learned from implementation experiences in other settings. Design and Methods: We reviewed implementation challenges associated both with the RAI and the RAI-HC in the United States, Canada, and other adopter countries, and drew on these to suggest lessons for the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as other entities implementing the RAI-HC. Results: Beyond its clinical utility, there are a number of evidence-based uses for the assessment system. The resident-level data can be aggregated and analyzed, and scales identify clinical conditions and risk for various types of negative outcomes. In addition, the data can be used for other programmatic and research purposes, such as determining eligibility, setting payment rates for contract care, and evaluating clinical interventions. At the same time, there are a number of implementation challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs and other organizations may face. Implications: Policy makers and program managers in any setting, including state long-term-care programs, who wish to implement an assessment system must anticipate and address a variety of implementation problems with a clear and consistent message from key leadership, adequate training and clinical support for assessors, and appropriate planning and resources for data systems.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>17565102</pmid><doi>10.1093/geront/47.3.378</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-9013
ispartof The Gerontologist, 2007-06, Vol.47 (3), p.378-387
issn 0016-9013
1758-5341
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70628537
source MEDLINE; Sociological Abstracts; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects Access to Health Care
Canada
Evaluation
Evaluation Methods
Federal Programs
Foreign Countries
Government Agencies
Health care policy
Health Planning
Health Services
Home Care
Home Care Services - standards
Home health
Home Health Aides
Home health care
Home Programs
Homes for the Aged - standards
Hospitals
MDS-HC
Medicare
Minimum Data Set
Nursing Homes
Nursing Homes - standards
Program Implementation
Prospective payment systems
Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods
Residential Care
Subacute care
Surveys
United States
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Veterans
title Prospects and Pitfalls: Use of the RAI-HC Assessment by the Department of Veterans Affairs for Home Care Clients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T19%3A37%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prospects%20and%20Pitfalls:%20Use%20of%20the%20RAI-HC%20Assessment%20by%20the%20Department%20of%20Veterans%20Affairs%20for%20Home%20Care%20Clients&rft.jtitle=The%20Gerontologist&rft.au=Hawes,%20Catherine&rft.date=2007-06&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=378&rft.epage=387&rft.pages=378-387&rft.issn=0016-9013&rft.eissn=1758-5341&rft.coden=GRNTA3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/geront/47.3.378&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E61759315%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=211028277&rft_id=info:pmid/17565102&rft_ericid=EJ768956&rfr_iscdi=true