Preliminary experience of allied health assessments delivered face to face and by videoconference to a residential facility for elderly people

We investigated whether allied health assessments carried out via videoconferencing were comparable to assessments carried out face to face. Five allied health therapists (in dietetics, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, podiatry and speech pathology) conducted an assessment of 12 high-dependency residents both face to face and by videoconferencing. On a five-point Likert scale, the therapists' mean ratings for the efficiency and suitability of videoconferencing for assessment were significantly lower than for face to face. Their mean rating for the adequacy of their care plans was also significantly lower for videoconferencing than for face to face. However, in each case the dietician's assessments did not differ significantly between the two modalities. In 35 cases out of 60, two independent raters agreed that the therapists' care plans after the videoconferencing and face-to-face assessments were the same. However, the level of agreement between raters was only moderate (kappa=0.31). Despite the therapists' (natural) preference for face-to-face working, care plans formulated via videoconferencing were reasonably similar to those formulated in face-to-face assessment. Allied health assessments carried out by videoconferencing would therefore seem to be feasible.

The cost of allied health assessments delivered by videoconference to a residential facility for elderly people

We calculated the cost of providing allied health assessments to high-dependency residents of a rural facility for elderly people. The costs of conducting assessments via videoconferencing were compared with the costs of conducting assessments face to face. The observed costs in a three-month pilot trial were used to estimate the annual costs. Given an annual workload of 1000 occasions of service, each videoconference assessment would cost $84.93, compared with $90.25 for face-to-face assessments. Allied health assessments delivered by videoconferencing became cheaper at workloads of approximately 850 occasions of service annually. Additional increases in the workload further improved the financial viability of this approach to service delivery.

Capturing expert knowledge for threatened species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks

Assessments for assigning the conservation status of threatened species that are based purely on subjective judgements become problematic because assessments can be influenced by hidden assumptions, personal biases and perceptions of risks, making the assessment process difficult to repeat. This can result in inconsistent assessments and misclassifications, which can lead to a lack of confidence in species assessments. It is almost impossible to Understand an expert's logic or visualise the underlying reasoning behind the many hidden assumptions used throughout the assessment process. In this paper, we formalise the decision making process of experts, by capturing their logical ordering of information, their assumptions and reasoning, and transferring them into a set of decisions rules. We illustrate this through the process used to evaluate the conservation status of species under the NatureServe system (Master, 1991). NatureServe status assessments have been used for over two decades to set conservation priorities for threatened species throughout North America. We develop a conditional point-scoring method, to reflect the current subjective process. In two test comparisons, 77% of species' assessments using the explicit NatureServe method matched the qualitative assessments done subjectively by NatureServe staff. Of those that differed, no rank varied by more than one rank level under the two methods. In general, the explicit NatureServe method tended to be more precautionary than the subjective assessments. The rank differences that emerged from the comparisons may be due, at least in part, to the flexibility of the qualitative system, which allows different factors to be weighted on a species-by-species basis according to expert judgement. The method outlined in this study is the first documented attempt to explicitly define a transparent process for weighting and combining factors under the NatureServe system. The process of eliciting expert knowledge identifies how information is combined and highlights any inconsistent logic that may not be obvious in Subjective decisions. The method provides a repeatable, transparent, and explicit benchmark for feedback, further development, and improvement. (C) 2004 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

Randomised controlled trial of health assessments for older Australian veterans and war widows

Objective: To assess the effect of home-based health assessments for older Australians on health-related quality of life, hospital and nursing home admissions, and death. Design: Randomised controlled trial of the effect of health assessments over 3 years. Participants and setting: 1569 community-living veterans and war widows receiving full benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and aged 70 years or over were randomly selected in 1997 from 10 regions of New South Wales and Queensland and randomly allocated to receive either usual care (n = 627) or health assessments (n = 942). Intervention: Annual or 6-monthly home-based health assessments by health professionals, with telephone follow-up, and written report to a nominated general practitioner. Main outcome measures: Differences in health-related quality of life, admission to hospital and nursing home, and death over 3 years of follow-up. Results: 3-year follow-up interviews were conducted for 1031 participants. Intervention-group participants who remained in the study reported higher quality of life than control-group participants (difference in Physical Component Summary score, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.05-1.76; difference in Mental Component Summary score, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.40-2.32). There was no significant difference in the probability of hospital admission or death between intervention and control groups over the study period. Significantly more participants in the intervention group were admitted to nursing homes compared with the control group (30 v 7; P < 0.01). Conclusions: Health assessments for older people may have small positive effects on quality of life for those who remain resident in the community, but do not prevent deaths. Assessments may increase the probability of nursing-home placement.