Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 968

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardizing Assessment of Elderly People in Acute Care: The interRAI Acute Care Instrument

Open access
Gray, Len C., Bernabei, Roberto, Berg, Katherine, Finne‐Soveri, Harriet, Fries, Brant E., Hirdes, John P., Jónsson, Pálmi V., Morris, John N., Steel, Knight, Ariño‐Blasco, Sergio·2008·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
DOI 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01590.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the frequency distributions and interrater reliability of individual items of the interRAI Acute Care instrument. DESIGN: Observational study of a representative sample of older inpatients; duplicate assessments conducted on a subsample by independent assessors to examine interrater reliability. SETTING: Acute medical, acute geriatric and orthopedic units in 13 hospitals in nine countries. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred thirty‐three patients aged 70 and older (mean age 82.4, range 70–102) with an anticipated stay of 48 hours or longer of whom 161 received duplicate assessments. MEASUREMENTS: Sixty‐two clinical items across 11 domains. Premorbid (3‐day observation period before onset of the acute illness) and admission (the first 24 hours of hospital stay) assessments were conducted. RESULTS: The frequency of deficits exceeded 30% for most items, ranging from 1% for physically abusive behavior to 86% for the need for support in activities of daily living after discharge. Common deficits were in cognitive skills for daily decision‐making (38% premorbid, 54% at admission), personal hygiene (37%, 65%), and walking (39%, 71%). Interrater reliability was substantial in the premorbid period (average κ=0.61) and admission period (average κ=0.66). Of the 69 items tested, less than moderate agreement (κ<0.4) was recorded for six (9%), moderate agreement (κ=0.41–0.6) for 14 (20%), substantial agreement (κ=0.61–0.8) for 40 (58%), and almost perfect agreement (κ>0.8) for nine (13%). CONCLUSION: Initial assessment of the psychometric properties of the interRAI Acute Care instrument provided evidence that item selection and interrater reliability are appropriate for clinical application. Further studies are required to examine the validity of embedded scales, diagnostic algorithms, and clinical protocols.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01590.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Gray, L. C., Bernabei, R., Berg, K., Finne‐Soveri, H., Fries, B. E., Hirdes, J. P., Jónsson, P. V., Morris, J. N., Steel, K., & Ariño‐Blasco, S.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-01-04
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
536-541
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
DOI
10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01590.x
OpenAlex
W1645246801
Cited by
968
References
2
FWCI
16.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.