The Gerontologist
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fries, B. E.
Right arrow Articles by Morris, J. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fries, B. E.
Right arrow Articles by Morris, J. N.
The Gerontologist 44:680-688 (2004)
© 2004 The Gerontological Society of America

Is Telephone Screening Feasible? Accuracy and Cost-Effectiveness of Identifying People Medically Eligible for Home- and Community-Based Services

Brant E. Fries, PhD1,2,3,, Mary James, MA1, Susan S. Hammer, Lisa R. Shugarman, PhD4 and John N. Morris, MSW, PhD5

Correspondence: Address correspondence to Brant E. Fries, PhD, Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2007. E-mail: bfries{at}umich.edu

Purpose: To determine the accuracy of a telephone-screening system to identify persons eligible for home- and community-based long-term care. Design and Methods: Data from Michigan telephone screens were compared to data from in-person assessments using the Minimum Data Set for Home Care (MDS-HC). Weighted kappa statistics measured the level of agreement between the two assessments. Results: Overall, recommendations based on the telephone screen produced a marginal match compared to recommendations based on in-person assessment. "False positives" (individuals scoring as more impaired on the telephone screen than in person) occurred in 27% of all cases, while "false negatives" (individuals scoring as less impaired on the telephone screen) only occurred among 6% of the callers. Neither individual screen questions, source of information, location of the individual, timing between screen and assessment, nor temporal changes accounted for mismatches. Telephone screens resulted in an 11% savings over the cost of providing in-person assessments to all program seekers. Implications: The telephone screen has utility as a broad targeting mechanism that allows agencies to avoid costly in-person assessments for all program seekers. Evidence does not support use of the telephone screen alone to determine either medical eligibility or a specific level of care.

Key Words: Long-term care • Preadmission screening • Eligibility • Nursing home • Home care • Assessment • MDS-HC




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GerontologistHome page
S. Hedrick, M. Guihan, M. Chapko, L. Manheim, J. Sullivan, M. Thomas, S. Barry, and A. Zhou
Characteristics of Residents and Providers in the Assisted Living Pilot Program
Gerontologist, June 1, 2007; 47(3): 365 - 377.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GerontologistHome page
C. Hawes, B. E. Fries, M. L. James, and M. Guihan
Prospects and Pitfalls: Use of the RAI-HC Assessment by the Department of Veterans Affairs for Home Care Clients
Gerontologist, June 1, 2007; 47(3): 378 - 387.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All GSA journals Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
Copyright © 2004 by The Gerontological Society of America.