4.5 Article

Development of a functional status assessment of seniors visiting emergency department

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
Volume 48, Issue 2, Pages 205-212

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2008.01.009

Keywords

Functional status; Emergency department; Geriatric assessment; Scale development

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [200506PPR, 149220]
  2. Quebec Population Health Research Network
  3. GIRU Groupe interuniversitaire de recherche Sur les urgences
  4. OEQ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and initial piloting of a Functional Status Assessment of Seniors in Emergency Department (FSAS-ED). The methodology of development of the tool included (1) specifying the underlying construct based on the conceptual framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), (2) deciding on an interview-based format appropriate for addressing functioning pre- and post-ED, (3) developing an initial 63-item pool and reviewing it through a consensus group with seven experts, (4) piloting the prototype with 23 subjects (mean age = 76 years) and (5) subsequently revising its rating scales. The final 40 items tool consists of three theoretically derived components. First, activity and participation (n = 23 items) address nine ICF domains using a 4-level scale combining levels of difficulty and help required. Second, body functions (n = 10 items) cover eight ICF domains with a 3-level scale of impairment. And third, environmental factors (n = 7 items) address four ICF domains assessed as facilitators or barriers. In conclusion, the FSAS-ED provides a clinical assessment of senior's functional status that is feasible to use in ED. It has potential utility for identifying unmet needs and obstacles for a safe return to the community. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available