A Functional Assessment System for Real-World Rehabilitation Outcomes

  • William J. Haffey
  • Mark V. Johnston
Part of the Foundations of Neuropsychology book series (FNPS, volume 2)

Abstract

Everyday in the United States persons who are functioning effectively in activities that meet their daily living needs and role responsibilities are rendered incapable by events such as traumatic brain injury (TBI), stroke, and other neurological disorders. As medical technology and emergency medical systems have become increasingly effective at reducing the mortality associated with neurological disease and trauma, there has been a concomitant rise in morbidity. Physiologic existence is perpetuated, yet many survivors are left permanently disabled. The quality of their lives is a function of the degree to which they can resume everyday life and role-related activities.

Keywords

Depression Transportation Hydrocephalus Aphasia Apraxia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brooks, N., Campsie, L., Symington, C., Beattie, A., & McKinlay, W. (1986). The five-year outcome of severe blunt head injury: A relative’s view. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 49, 764–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks, N., Campsie, L., Symington, C., Beattie, A., & McKinlay, W. (1987a). The effects of severe head injury on patient and relative within seven years of injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 2(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, N., McKinlay, W., Symington, C., Beattie, A., & Campsie, L. (1987b). Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury. Brain Injury, 1(1), 5–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dejong, G. (1987). Medical rehabilitation outcome measurement in a changing health care market. In M. Fuhrer (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement (pp. 261–271). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  5. Forer, S. (1987). Outcome analysis for program service management. In M. Fuhrer (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement (pp. 115–136). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  6. Frey, W. D. (1984). Functional assessment in the 80s: A conceptual enigma, a technical challenge. In A. Halpern & M. Fuhrer (Eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation (pp. 11–43). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  7. Fuhrer, M. (1987). Overview of outcome analysis in rehabilitation. In M. J. Fuhrer (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement (pp. 1–15). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  8. Granger, C. (1984). A conceptual model for functional assessment. In C. Granger & G. Gresham, Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine (pp. 14–25). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  9. Haffey, W., & Johnston, M. (1989). An information system to assess the effectiveness of brain injury rehabilitation. In R. L. Wood & P. G. Eames (Eds.), Models of brain injury rehabilitation (pp. 205–233). London: Groom Helm.Google Scholar
  10. Halpern, A., & Fuhrer, M. (1984). Introduction. In A. Halpern & M. Fuhrer (Eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation (pp. 1–9). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, B., Granger, C., Sherwin, F., Zielezny, M., &Tashman,J. (1987). A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In M. Fuhrer (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement (pp. 137–147). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  12. Hart, T., & Hayden, M. E. (1986a). The ecological validity of neuropsychological assessment and remediation. In B. Uzzell & Y. Gross (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology of intervention (pp. 21–50). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  13. Hart, T., & Hayden, M. E. (1986b). Issues in the evaluation of rehabilitation effects. In M. Miner & K. Wagner (Eds.), Neurotrauma: Treatment, rehabilitation, and related issues (pp. 197–212). Boston: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  14. Jennett, B., Snoek, J., Bond, M., & Brooks, N. (1981). Disability after severe head injury: Observations on the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 44, 285–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jette, A. (1984). Concepts of health and methodological issues in functional assessment. In C. Granger & G. Gresham (Eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine (pp. 46–64). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  16. Keith, R. A. (1984). Functional assessment in program evaluation for rehabilitation medicine. In C. Granger & G. Gresham (Eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine (pp. 122–139). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  17. Livingston, M. G. (1987). Head injury: The relative’s response. Brain Injury, 1(1), 33–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sigelman, C. K., Spanhel, C. L., & Vangroff, L. P. (1979). Disability and the concept of life functions. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 23, 103–113.Google Scholar
  19. Thomsen, I. V. (1987). Late psychosocial outcome in severe blunt head trauma. Brain Injury, 1(2), 131–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wood, P. H., & Badley, E. (1984). Contribution of epidemiology to health care planning for people with disabilities. In C. Granger & G. Gresham (Eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine (pp. 26–45). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  21. World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Haffey
  • Mark V. Johnston

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations