Effects of applying a standardized assessment and evaluation protocol in housing adaptation implementation - results from a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Standardized, research-based strategies to guide the implementation and evaluate the effects of housing adaptations (HA) on client outcomes are rare. We hypothesized that, compared to ordinary practice, a standardized assessment and evaluation protocol for HA implementation would better maintain or improve client outcomes over 1 year. METHOD: Using a cluster design, South Swedish municipalities were recruited to an intervention or control group. Data on activities of daily living, usability of the home, health related quality of life, and participation frequency and satisfaction were collected at home visits 1 month before the HA (baseline; T1), and at 3 (T2), 6 (T3) and 12 (T4) months after. In the intervention group (n = 112) data were collected according to a standardized protocol while in the control group (n = 129) ordinary routines were applied. Changes from baseline to subsequent time points were categorized as no deterioration (i.e. improvement or no change) or deterioration, for each outcome item separately. Differences in "no deterioration" between the groups were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Little effect of using the standardized protocol was detected. For activities of daily living, statistically significant differences between the groups were found for toileting (T1-T4; OR 3.14), dressing (T1-T4; OR2.89) and cooking (T1-T3 and T1-T4; OR 3.14). For usability of the home differences were found in personal hygiene (T1-T2; OR 2.32) using a wheelchair (T1-T2 and T1-T3; OR 9.50), picking up the mail (T1-T3; OR 4.06), and in participation, helping others (T1-T3 and T1-T4; OR 2.33 and 3.36). CONCLUSION: The applied standardized protocol for HA implementation did not show any convincing effect, possibly due to the complexity of the intervention itself, and the implementation process. A process evaluation might generate in-depth knowledge about the reasons behind the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov . NCT01960582.

[Evaluation of the appropriateness of public hospital use using AEP, Disease Staging, and other DRG-based criteria (essential levels of care--Italian LEA): results and degree of agreement among the different methodologies]. / Valutazione dell'appropriatezza organizzativa degli ospe- dali pubblici abruzzesi tramite PRUO, Disease Staging, e mediante il calcolo dei DRG ad alto rischio di inappropria- tezza secondo i "nuovi" e "vecchi" LEA: risultati e grado di concordanza tra le diverse metodiche.

Currently, more than one instrument has been found to be reliable and valid for the assessment of hospital admission appropriateness. However; data on the level of agreement among these methodologies are extremely scarce. The study was aimed at evaluating whether the percentages of organizational (in)appropriateness resulting from some of the most diffused instruments (Italian Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol--AEP/PRUO; Disease Staging; Essential Levels of Care--LEA, version 2001 and 2008) are substantially concordant, or they largely depend upon the methodology. For each public hospital of Abruzzo, Italy, the amount of inappropriateness has been computed using six indicators: inappropriate days of care (PRUO1); totally inappropriate admissions (PRU02); early admissions DRGs according to the first Law on Italian LEA (LEA01); admissions assigned to one of the 108 potentially inappropriate DRGs according to the second Law on Italian LEA, currently inactive (LEA08). The sample was composed by all ordinary admissions made in 2006 in the Region, with the exception of PRUO indicators, which were based upon the manual revision of 2% of all admissions that could be assessed using PRUO methodology. We found a good correlation among most indicators based upon administrative discharge data (DS1, DS2 and LEA01), whereas the results obtained using PRUO and new LEA (LEA08) were discordant, and marked differences were observed also between the two PRUO indicators. Although the limitations of the study permit only preliminary conclusions, in future appropriateness evaluations it may be reasonable to use more than one indicator--allowing the creation of combined scores--and rank hospitals in large categories--avoiding excessively precise scores--as such rankings might relevantly differ depending upon the used instrument.