Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reference Standard for the Measurement of Loss of Autonomy and Functional Capacities in Long-Term Care Facilities

  • Original Research
  • Clinics and Public Health
  • Published:
The Journal of Frailty & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The vast majority of people living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are octogenarians (i.e., in Québec, 57.4% of the residents are age 85 or older, 26.2% are between age 75 and 84, 10.7% are between age 65 and 74, and 5.7% are below age 65 (1)), who are affected by a great loss of physical or cognitive autonomy due to illnesses and are unable to maintain their independence, safety and mobility at home. For the majority of them, their last living environment will be a LTCF. Moreover, the annual turnover in LTCFs is one-third of all residents (2) while the average length of stay is 823 days (1). Therefore the main challenges for caregivers in LTCFs are the maintenance of functional capacities and preventing patients from becoming bedridden and isolated. Measuring the level of autonomy and functional capacities is therefore a key element in the care of institutionalized people. Several validated tools are available to quantify the degree of dependence and the functional capacities of older people living in long-term care facilities. This narrative review aims to present the characteristics of the specific population living in long-term care facilities and describe the most widely used and validated tools to measure their level of autonomy and functional capacities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Castonguay, J., Bourassa Forcier, A., Lemay, A., & Denis, J.-L. Le devoir de faire autrement Partie 2: Réorienter la gouvernance vers des résultats qui comptent pour les gens. 2022 [cited 2022 13 march]; Available from: https://www.csbe.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/www/2022/Rapportfinal_Mandat/CSBE-Rapport_final_Partie2.pdf.

  2. Vossius, C., et al., Mortality in nursing home residents: A longitudinal study over three years. PLoS One, 2018. 13(9): p. e0203480.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. van Loon, J., et al., Facilitators and barriers to autonomy: A systematic literature review for older adults with physical impairments, living in residential care facilities. Aging & Society, 2019. 41(5).

  4. van Loon, J., Luijkx, K., Janssen, M., de Rooij, I., & Janssen, B. (2019). Facilitators and barriers to autonomy: A systematic literature review for older adults with physical impairments, living in residential care facilities. Aging & Society, 41(5)., Facilitators and barriers to autonomy: A systematic literature review for older adults with physical impairments, living in residential care facilities. Aging & society, 2019. 41(5).

  5. Laan, W., et al., Validity and reliability of the Katz-15 scale to measure unfavorable health outcomes in community-dwelling older people. J Nutr Health Aging, 2014. 18(9): p. 848–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rubenstein, L.Z., Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing, 2006. 35Suppl 2: p. ii37–ii41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buckinx, F., et al., Relationship between frailty, physical performance and quality of life among nursing home residents: the SENIOR cohort. Aging Clin Exp Res, 2016. 28(6): p. 1149–1157.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Charles, A., et al., Physical performance trajectories and mortality among nursing home residents: results of the SENIOR cohort. Age Ageing, 2020.

  9. Québec, I.d.l.S.d., Le bilan démographique du Québec. 2021: Québec.

  10. Moore, K.L., et al., Patterns of chronic co-morbid medical conditions in older residents of U.S. nursing homes: differences between the sexes and across the agespan. J Nutr Health Aging, 2014. 18(4): p. 429–36.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Björk, S., et al., Exploring the prevalence and variance of cognitive impairment, pain, neuropsychiatric symptoms and ADL dependency among persons living in nursing homes; a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr, 2016. 16(1): p. 154.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kojima, G., Prevalence of Frailty in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2015. 16(11): p. 940–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Buckinx, F., et al., Prevalence of Frailty in Nursing Home Residents According to Various Diagnostic Tools. J Frailty Aging, 2017. 6(3): p. 122–128.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Organisation, W.H., International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps, a manual of classification relating to the consequences of diseases», in CIDIH 1980.

  15. Desrosiers, J., et al., Reliability of the revised functional autonomy measurement system (SMAF) for epidemiological research. Age Ageing, 1995. 24(5): p. 402–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hebert, R., R. Carrier, and A. Bilodeau, The Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF): description and validation of an instrument for the measurement of handicaps. Age Ageing, 1988. 17(5): p. 293–302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aguilova, L., et al., [AGGIR scale: a contribution to specifying the needs of disabled elders]. Rev Neurol (Paris), 2014. 170(3): p. 216–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hébert, R., et al., [Development of indicators to promote measures for the prevention and rehabilitation of functional decline in older people]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique, 2012. 60(6): p. 463–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Törnquist, K., M. Lövgren, and B. Söderfeldt, Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value in Katz’s and Barthel’s ADL indices applied on patients in long term nursing care. Scand J Caring Sci, 1990. 4(3): p. 99–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lawton, M.P. and E.M. Brody, Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist, 1969. 9(3): p. 179–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Graf, C., The Lawton instrumental activities of daily living scale. Am J Nurs, 2008. 108(4): p. 52–62; quiz 62–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Suijker, J.J., et al., Minimal Important Change and Minimal Detectable Change in Activities of Daily Living in Community-Living Older People. J Nutr Health Aging, 2017. 21(2): p. 165–172.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wade, D.T. and C. Collin, The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud, 1988. 10(2): p. 64–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Sullivan Susan B; Schmitz, T.J., Physical Rehabilitation, ed. F. Edition. 2007, Philadelphia, PA: Davis Company.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bouwstra, H., et al., Measurement Properties of the Barthel Index in Geriatric Rehabilitation. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2019. 20(4): p. 420–425.e1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hasselkus, B.R., BARTHEL SELF-CARE INDEX AND GERIATRIC HOME CARE PATIENTS. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics, 1982. 1(4): p. 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dickson, H.G. and F. Köhler, Functional independence measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med, 1999. 31(1): p. 63–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sivan, M., et al., Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. J Rehabil Med, 2011. 43(3): p. 181–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ottenbacher, K.J., et al., The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1996. 77(12): p. 1226–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McDowell, I., Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (3rd ed.). 2006, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Saji, N., et al., Functional independence measure scores predict level of long-term care required by patients after stroke: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2015. 37(4): p. 331–337.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lin, K.-H., et al., Functional independence of residents in urban and rural long-term care facilities in Taiwan. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2004. 26(3): p. 176–181.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kosasih, J.B., et al., Nursing home rehabilitation after acute rehabilitation: predictors and outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1998. 79(6): p. 670–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Morris, J.N., et al., Scaling functional status within the interRAI suite of assessment instruments. BMC Geriatr, 2013. 13: p. 128.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim, H., et al., Reliability of the interRAI Long Term Care Facilities (LTCF) and interRAI Home Care (HC). Geriatr Gerontol Int, 2015. 15(2): p. 220–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hirdes, J.P., et al., The interRAI Suite of Mental Health Assessment Instruments: An Integrated System for the Continuum of Care. Front Psychiatry, 2019. 10: p. 926.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuys, S.S., et al., Gait speed in ambulant older people in long term care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2014. 15(3): p. 194–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Perera, S., et al., Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2006. 54(5): p. 743–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fien, S., et al., Gait speed characteristics and their spatiotemporal determinants in nursing home residents: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy (2001), 2019. 42(3): p. E148–E154.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Telenius, E.W., K. Engedal, and A. Bergland, Inter-rater reliability of the Berg balance scale, 30 s chair stand test and 6 m walking test, and construct validity of the Berg balance scale in nursing home residents with mild-to-moderate dementia. BMJ open, 2015. 5(9): p. e008321.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Blankevoort, C.G., M.J.G. van Heuvelen, and E.J.A. Scherder, Reliability of six physical performance tests in older people with dementia. Physical Therapy, 2013. 93(1): p. 69–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Podsiadlo, D. and S. Richardson, The timed «Up & Go»: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1991. 39(2): p. 142–148.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Herman, T., N. Giladi, and J.M. Hausdorff, Properties of the ‘timed up and go’ test: more than meets the eye. Gerontology, 2011. 57(3): p. 203–210.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Takada, Y. and S. Tanaka, Standard Error of the Mean and Minimal Detectable Change of Gait Speed in Older Adults Using Japanese Long-Term Care Insurance System. Gerontol Geriatr Med, 2021. 7: p. 23337214211048955.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Nordin, E., et al., Prognostic validity of the timed up-and-go test, a modified get-up-and-go test, staff’s global judgement and fall history in evaluating fall risk in residential care facilities. Age and Ageing, 2008. 37(4): p. 442–448.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Galhardas, L., A. Raimundo, and J. Marmeleira, Test-retest reliability of upper-limb proprioception and balance tests in older nursing home residents. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 2020. 89: p. 104079.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Guralnik, J.M., et al., A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: Association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. Journal of Gerontology, 1994. 49(2): p. M85–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Muñoz-Bermejo, L., et al., Test-Retest Reliability of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (FTSST) in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biology (Basel), 2021. 10(6).

  49. Meretta, B.M., et al., The five times sit to stand test: responsiveness to change and concurrent validity in adults undergoing vestibular rehabilitation. J Vestib Res, 2006. 16(4–5): p. 233–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tiedemann, A., et al., The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people. Age and Ageing, 2008. 37(4): p. 430–435.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jones, C.J., R.E. Rikli, and W.C. Beam, A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1999. 70(2): p. 113–119.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Binder, E.F., J.P. Miller, and L.J. Ball, Development of a test of physical performance for the nursing home setting. The Gerontologist, 2001. 41(5): p. 671–679.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Perera, S., et al., Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2006. 54(5): p. 743–749.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Vasunilashorn, S., et al., Use of the Short Physical Performance Battery Score to predict loss of ability to walk 400 meters: analysis from the InCHIANTI study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 2009. 64(2): p. 223–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Braun, T., et al., Reliability of mobility measures in older medical patients with cognitive impairment. BMC geriatrics, 2019. 19(1): p. 20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Berg, K., et al., Measuring balance in the elderly: Preliminary development of an instrument. Physiotherapy Canada, 1989. 41(6): p. 304–311.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Bergland, A., Evaluating the feasibility and intercorrelation of measurements on the functioning of residents living in Scandinavian nursing homes. Physical & occupational therapy in geriatrics. 28(2).

  58. Berg, K.O., et al., Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health, 1992. 83 Suppl 2: p. S7–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Conradsson, M., et al., Berg balance scale: intrarater test-retest reliability among older people dependent in activities of daily living and living in residential care facilities. Physical Therapy, 2007. 87(9): p. 1155–1163.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bohannon, R.W., Minimal clinically important difference for grip strength: a systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci, 2019. 31(1): p. 75–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Bahat, G., et al., Cut-off points to identify sarcopenia according to European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) definition. Clin Nutr, 2016. 35(6): p. 1557–1563.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ferreira, S., A. Raimundo, and J. Marmeleira, Test-retest reliability of the functional reach test and the hand grip strength test in older adults using nursing home services. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 2021. 190(4): p. 1625–1632.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lim, S.K. and S. Kong, Prevalence, physical characteristics, and fall risk in older adults with and without possible sarcopenia. Aging Clin Exp Res, 2022. 34(6): p. 1365–1371.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Boshnjaku, A., et al., Test-retest reliability data of functional performance, strength, peak torque and body composition assessments in two different age groups of Kosovan adults. Data Brief, 2021. 36: p. 106988.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Fishleder, S., et al., Predictors of Improvement in Physical Function in Older Adults in an Evidence-Based Physical Activity Program (EnhanceFitness). J Geriatr Phys Ther, 2019. 42(4): p. 230–242.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Askari, S., et al., Wheelchair propulsion test: development and measurement properties of a new test for manual wheelchair users. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2013. 94(9): p. 1690–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gauthier, C., et al., Reliability and minimal detectable change of a new treadmill-based progressive workload incremental test to measure cardiorespiratory fitness in manual wheelchair users. J Spinal Cord Med, 2017. 40(6): p. 759–767.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Gagnon, D., S. Décary, and M.F. Charbonneau, The timed manual wheelchair slalom test: a reliable and accurate performance-based outcome measure for individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2011. 92(8): p. 1339–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Pradon, D., et al., Could mobilty performance measures be used to evaluate wheelchair skills? J Rehabil Med, 2012. 44(3): p. 276–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Medley, A. and M. Thompson, Development, reliability, and validity of the Sitting Balance Scale. Physiother Theory Pract, 2011. 27(7): p. 471–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Thornton, M. and H. Sveistrup, Intra- and inter-rater reliability and validity of the Ottawa Sitting Scale: a new tool to characterise sitting balance in acute care patients. Disabil Rehabil, 2010. 32(19): p. 1568–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Rushton, P.W., et al., Measurement properties of the Wheelchair Skills Test-Questionnaire for powered wheelchair users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2016. 11(5): p. 400–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Rushton, P.W., R.L. Kirby, and W.C. Miller, Manual wheelchair skills: objective testing versus subjective questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2012. 93(12): p. 2313–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Cress, M.E., et al., Physical functional performance in persons using a manual wheelchair. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2002. 32(3): p. 104–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. May, L.A., et al., Measurement reliability of functional tasks for persons who self-propel a manual wheelchair. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2003. 84(4): p. 578–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Krayn-Deckel, N., K. Presaizen, and A. Kalron, Cognitive status is associated with performance of manual wheelchair skills in hospitalized older adults. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2022: p. 1–6.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. F. Buckinx and E. Peyrusqué contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département des sciences de l’activité physique, Faculté des Sciences, Groupe de recherche en activité physique adaptée, Université du Québec à Montréal, Pavillon Sciences Biologiques, SB-4615, 141, Avenue du Président Kennedy, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2X 1Y4

    F. Buckinx, E. Peyrusqué & Mylene Aubertin-Leheudre

  2. Centre de Recherche de l’Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, Qc, Canada

    F. Buckinx, E. Peyrusqué, M. J. Kergoat & Mylene Aubertin-Leheudre

  3. Faculté de médecine, département de médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Qc, Canada

    M. J. Kergoat

Authors
  1. F. Buckinx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Peyrusqué
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. J. Kergoat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mylene Aubertin-Leheudre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mylene Aubertin-Leheudre.

Ethics declarations

This is not a human experiment. All authors participated in the writing of this article and agree with the content.

Additional information

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buckinx, F., Peyrusqué, E., Kergoat, M.J. et al. Reference Standard for the Measurement of Loss of Autonomy and Functional Capacities in Long-Term Care Facilities. J Frailty Aging 12, 236–243 (2023). https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2023.4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2023.4

Key words

Search

Navigation