4.4 Article

The Minimum Data Set 3.0 Cognitive Function Scale

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 E68-E72

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000334

关键词

nursing homes; cognition; clinical assessment

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [T32 HS-000011]
  2. National Institute on Aging [P01AG027296]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 introduced the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), a short performance-based cognitive screener for nursing home (NH) residents. Not all residents are able to complete the BIMS and are consequently assessed by staff. We designed a Cognitive Function Scale (CFS) integrating self-report and staff-report data and present evidence of the scale's construct validity. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Subjects: The subjects consisted of 3 cohorts: (1) long-stay NH residents (N = 941,077) and (2) new admissions (N = 2,066,580) during 2011-2012, and (3) residents with the older MDS 2.0 assessment in 2010 and the newer MDS 3.0 assessment (n = 688,511). Measures: MDS 3.0 items were used to create a single, integrated 4-category hierarchical CFS that was compared with residents' prior MDS 2.0 Cognitive Performance Scale scores and other concurrent MDS 3.0 measures of construct validity. Results: The new CFS suggests that 28% of the long-stay cohort in 2011-2012 were cognitively intact, 22% were mildly impaired, 33% were moderately impaired, and 17% were severely impaired. For the admission cohort, the CFS noted 56% as cognitively intact, 23% as mildly impaired, 17% as moderately impaired, and 4% as severely impaired. The CFS corresponded closely with residents' prior MDS 2.0 Cognitive Performance Scale scores and with performance of Activities of Daily Living, and nurses' judgments of function and behavior in both the admission and long-stay cohorts. Conclusions: The new CFS is valuable to researchers as it provides a single, integrated measure of NH residents' cognitive function, regardless of the mode of assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据