Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:02:30.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual Rehabilitation Plans, Goals and Outcomes: An Argument for Utilizing Individually Determined Outcome Measures in Rehabilitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2015

Steven La Grow  and
Graeme Craig
Steven La Grow*
Affiliation:
Massey University, New Zealand
Graeme Craig
Affiliation:
Royal Victoria Institute for the Blind, Melbourne, Australia
*
Professor Steven LaGrow, School of Health Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The advent of managed care as a system driving purchasing in the health sector has brought with it an emphasis on purchasing outcomes rather than inputs. Although any change in purchasing schemes will have an effect on service providers, it should not prove to be too disruptive for those of us in rehabilitation since rehabilitation as a service system has always been outcome driven. In fact, our entire system is driven by needs based assessment and directed toward the meeting individually identified goals for service. These goals reflect the desired outcome of the service we provide for each individual served. The challenge we face, then, is translating our emphasis on goal directed, outcome driven services to meet the language, understanding and expectations of our funding agents as they begin to adopt a regime of outcome based contracts. The purpose of this paper is to argue the validity of individually determined outcomes as opposed to institutionally determined measures and to propose one method of measuring those outcomes in a manner that is applicable to the needs of the purchaser.

Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , 1999 , pp. 43 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Craig, G. & La Grow, S. (1999). Developing a new service model and meaningful services evaluation: Facing the challenge in Australia, Paper presented at Vision 99, the International Conference on Low Vision. New York: NY, USA, 07.Google Scholar
De Jong, G. (1997). Value perspective and the challenge of managed care. In Fuhrer, M.J. (Ed), Assessing medical rehabilitation practices: The promise of outcomes research, (pp. 61–90). Baltimore, MD, Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Johnston, M., Stineman, M. & Velozo, C. (1997). Outcomes research in medical rehabilitation: Foundations from the past and directions for the future. In Fuhrer, M.J. (Ed), Assessing medical rehabilitation practices: The promise of outcomes research, (pp. 1–42). Baltimore, MD, Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Wade, D.T. (1998). A framework for considering rehabilitation interventions. Clinical Rehabilitation, 12, 363–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whiteneck, G. (1994). Measuring what matters: Key rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 75, 1073–1076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed