Does the NAIP classification predict length of stay in rehabilitation,geriatrics and palliative care?

Abstract

The Australian National Non-Acute Inpatient Project (NAIP) reported its findings on casemix in rehabilitation and slow stream geriatric medicine in October 1992. It proposed a per diem NAIP classification of 19 classes using six major clinical groups and the resource utilisation groups version three activities of daily living index (RUG III ADL index). Weightings were determined based on time spent by clinical staff in treating these patients. A quality management study was undertaken in the rehabilitation, geriatrics, and palliative care wards of the Illawarra Area Health Service for three months in 1993, analysing length of stay and cost against the predictive weights of the NAIP classification. The study concluded that this classification was an acceptable predictor of per diem costs of care in these wards of the Illawarra but was not a good predictor of length of stay.

Classifying sub-acute and non-acute patients: Results of the New South Wales Casemix Area Network study

“…The study concluded that a daily classification may be necessary for this form of care as length of stay was not predictable. This was confirmed in another small study in the Illawarra (Lee, Kennedy & Aitken 1996).…”

The Australian National Sub-Acuteand Non-Acute Patient casemix classification

“…1992;Baker 1994;Lee et al 1994;Smith & Firms 1994;Coopers & Lybrand Consultants 1995;Donnelly et al 1995;Eagar et al 1997;Hindle␣ 1995;Webster 1995;Lee & Kennedy 1996). These previous studies demonstrated that the DRG system is not suitable for the classification of sub-acute and non-acute care.…”

Subacute care and rehabilitation

“…Efforts to identify casemix systems in subacute care that explain episode costs have been less successful (Lee, Kennedy et al 1996) (Eagar, Cromwell et al 1997). Payment systems for subacute care therefore are mainly based around per diem costs.…”