No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Validity of the Alberta Assessment and Placement Instrument (AAPI) for Use in Admitting Long-Term Care Clients to Home Care*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2010
Abstract
The Alberta Assessment and Placement Instrument (AAPI), a multidimensionalassessment, is used to assess clients for continuing care in Alberta. We conducted a retrospective chart review to determine the validity of the AAPI items for use with long-term clients who are referred to Home Care. We were also interested in determining the status of clients one year after they were admitted to home care. The charts of 60 clients admitted to home care and 60 not admitted were randomly selected for the year 1992, the most recent year during which a duplication of all AAPI results was kept. The groups did not differ in demographic characteristics, measures of perceived need, number of medications, nutrition, cognitive status, psychosocial status, and use of formal and informal care providers as described in the AAPI. However, they differed significantly in medication management: those admitted to home care required more assistance with medication management than those not admitted. Therefore, use of the AAPI alone does not determine whether or not a client is admitted to home care. When the charts were followed one year after the initial administration of the AAPI, only 18 per cent of those admitted to home care remained on home care whereas 42 per cent of those not admitted to home care were now admitted. The admission of a client to home care was associated with an increased likelihood of being admitted to a long-term care institution (OR = 6.56) or being deceased (OR = 5.36) one year later.
Résumé
L'instrument d'évaluation multidimensionnelle Alberta Assessment and Placement Instrument (AAPI) sert à évaluer la clientèle des soins prolongés en Alberta. Nous avons réalisé un examen rétrospectif des fiches afin de déterminer la validité des éléments de l'AAPI utilisés avec des clients à long terme qui sont dirigés vers les soins à domicile. Nous voulions déterminer aussi l'état des clients un an après avoir été admis aux soins à domicile. On a choisi au hasard, pour l'année 1992 (l'année la plus récente au cours de laquelle une copie de tous les résultats de l'AAPI a été conservée), les fiches de 60 clients admis à des soins à domicile et de 60 clients non admis à ces soins. Les groupes ne différaient pas quant aux caractéristiques démographiques, aux mesures de besoins perçus, au nombre de médicaments, à la nutrition, à l'état cognitif, à l'état psychosocial, et à l'utilisation de dispensateurs de soins formels et informels, comme cela est expliqué dans l'AAPI. Cependant, ces groupes différaient considérablement quant à la gestion de la médication: les personnes qui ont été admises aux soins à domicile nécessitaient plus d'aide quant à la gestion des médicaments que les personnes non admises. Par conséquent, l'utilisation de l'AAPI à lui seul ne détermine pas si un client ou une cliente est admis(e) aux soins à domicile. Quand on a fait le suivi des fiches un an après le début de l'administration de l'AAPI, seulement 18 pour cent des personnes admises aux soins à domicile se trouvaient toujours aux soins àdomicile, tandis que 42 pour cent des personnes non admises aux soins à domicile l'étaient à ce moment-là. L'admission d'un client ou d'une cliente aux soins àdomicile était associée à une probabilité accrue d'être admis(e) à un etablissementde soins prolongés (OR = 6,56) ou d'être décédé(e) (OR = 5,36) après un an.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , Automne/Fall 1998 , pp. 296 - 310
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1998
References
Alberta Health. (1989). Alberta assessment and placement instrument for long term care: Reference manual. Edmonton: author.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. (1982). Standardization of the assessment process in a decentralized service delivery system. The Gerontologist, 22(Scientific Meeting Supplement), 63.Google Scholar
Beebe, M. (1995, October). Predictors of care level among British Columbia seniors (abstract). Proceedings of the Canadian Association on Gerontology, Vancouver, BC, 127.Google Scholar
Bernstein, L. (1992). A public health approach to functional assessment. Caring Magazine, December, 32–38.Google Scholar
Chappell, N.L. (1985). Social support and the receipt of home care services. Gerontologist, 25(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dellaseger, C, & Stricklin, M. (1993). Cognitive impairment in elderly home health clients. Home Health Care Services Quarterly, 14(1), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disler, P., Roy, C, & Smith, B. (1993). Predicting hours of care needed. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 139–143.Google Scholar
Esposito, L. (1992). Medication knowledge and compliance: Home care vs. senior housing clients. Caring, 11(11), 42–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Frederiks, C.M., Wierik, M.J., Visser, A.P., & Sturmans, F. (1991). A scale for the functional status of the elderly living at home. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 16, 287–292.Google Scholar
Glick, D. (1994). The relationship between demographic characteristics and nursing problems in home health care. Public Health Nursing, 11(4), 259–267.Google Scholar
Greene, V.L., & Monahan, D.J. (1981). Inconsistency in level of care assignment decisions in skilled nursing facilities. American Journal of Public Health, 71(9), 1036–1038.Google Scholar
Gutman, G., Stark, A.J., & Kliewer, E. (1980). Placement decisions: attempts at reducing variables to a manageable set. Presented at the 33rd Annual Scientific Meeting, Gerontological Society, San Diego, Nov., 1980 (mimeographed).Google Scholar
Health and Welfare Canada. (1992). An exploratory study of private home care services in Canada. Ottawa, author.Google Scholar
Helberg, J. (1993). Patient's status at home care discharge. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25(2), 93–99.Google Scholar
Helberg, J. (1994). Use of home care nursing resources by the elderly. Public Health Nursing, 11(2), 104–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempen, G., & Suurmeijer, P. (1991). Factors influencing professional home care utilization among the elderly. Social Science and Medicine, 32(1), 77–81.Google Scholar
Magaziner, J., & Cadigan, D. (1989). Community care of older women living alone. Women in Later Years, 121–138.Google ScholarPubMed
McKenzie, D., Capuzzi, D, & Will, S. (1989). Alberta assessment and placement instrument: Description and interrater reliability. Medical Care, 27(10), 937–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payton, O. (1993). Research: The validation of clinical practice (3rd ed.). PA: FA Davis Co.Google Scholar
Saba, V., & Zuckerman, A. (1992). A new home health classification method. Caring Magazine, October, 27–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Spector, W. (1991). Cognitive impairment and disruptive behaviours among community-based elderly persons: Implications for targeting long term care. The Gerontologist, 31(1), 51–59.Google Scholar
SPSS Inc. (1993). Statistical package for the social sciences (computer program). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Stark, A.J., Gutman, G.M., & Brothers, K. (1982). Reliability of level of care decisions in long-term care programs. Journal of Community Health, 8, 102–109.Google Scholar
Streiner, D.L., & Norman, G.R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Rossum, E. (1993). Effects of preventative home visits to the elderly. Netherlands: author.Google Scholar
Van Rossum, E., Frederiks, E, Philipsen, H., Pertengen, K., Wiskerke, J., & Knipschild, P. (1993). Effects of preventative home visits to elderly people. British Medical Journal, 307, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Worali, G., & Moulton, N. (1993). Coginitive function: Survey of elderly persons living at home in rural Newfoundland. Canadian Family Physician, 39, 772–777.Google Scholar