摘要

Purpose: To develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) for managing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-based disability evaluation system in Taiwan. Method: Using a three-round Delphi exercise, 20 representatives from the social welfare associations for people with disability completed the consensus process. Questionnaire 1 comprised 52 potentially important factors relevant to good services for persons with disabilities in the system. An additional nine items were added to questionnaires 2 and 3. The responders rated the importance of each item using a 5-point Likert scale. The set of QIs for managing the system comprised items that obtained high consensus and a mean score ≥4.5 found in round 3. Results: Those QIs included a composite of measures about a comfortable and barrier-free assessment room, on-site assistance (being important for client access and safety), client’s privacy, rights protection, and satisfaction, convenient service, attitude of staff (towards client centeredness), accuracy of report (system effectiveness), and competent staff (system efficiency). Spearman’s rho (mean ± standard deviation) of round 3 was 0.79 ± 0.09, and Cronbach’s α = 0.90. Conclusions: This set of QIs is suitable for managing the system serving people with disabilities. It is feasible in practice and scientifically acceptable, but further validation is needed.Implications for rehabilitation With this study, we were able to develop a set of quality indicators for managing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based disability evaluation system. The set of quality indicators included a composite of measures about a comfortable and barrier-free assessment room and on-site assistance; client’s privacy, rights protection, and satisfaction, convenient service, attitude of staff; accuracy of report, and competent staff. These quality indicators foster client-centeredness, access, safety, system effectiveness and efficiency, feasibility, and science; and are relevant to managing a system that is intended to serve people with disabilities.
原文英語
期刊Disability and Rehabilitation
DOIs
出版狀態接受/付印 - 一月 1 2018

指紋

Disability Evaluation
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Disabled Persons
Taiwan
Consensus
Attitude of Health Personnel
Privacy
Safety
Social Welfare
Rehabilitation
Exercise
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation

引用此文

@article{e123aa8ea3a14419a9bf3fdb693c7fd7,
title = "Development of indicators to assure quality of disability evaluation based on the International Classification of functioning, disability, and health in Taiwan: a Delphi consensus",
abstract = "Purpose: To develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) for managing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-based disability evaluation system in Taiwan. Method: Using a three-round Delphi exercise, 20 representatives from the social welfare associations for people with disability completed the consensus process. Questionnaire 1 comprised 52 potentially important factors relevant to good services for persons with disabilities in the system. An additional nine items were added to questionnaires 2 and 3. The responders rated the importance of each item using a 5-point Likert scale. The set of QIs for managing the system comprised items that obtained high consensus and a mean score ≥4.5 found in round 3. Results: Those QIs included a composite of measures about a comfortable and barrier-free assessment room, on-site assistance (being important for client access and safety), client’s privacy, rights protection, and satisfaction, convenient service, attitude of staff (towards client centeredness), accuracy of report (system effectiveness), and competent staff (system efficiency). Spearman’s rho (mean ± standard deviation) of round 3 was 0.79 ± 0.09, and Cronbach’s α = 0.90. Conclusions: This set of QIs is suitable for managing the system serving people with disabilities. It is feasible in practice and scientifically acceptable, but further validation is needed.Implications for rehabilitation With this study, we were able to develop a set of quality indicators for managing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based disability evaluation system. The set of quality indicators included a composite of measures about a comfortable and barrier-free assessment room and on-site assistance; client’s privacy, rights protection, and satisfaction, convenient service, attitude of staff; accuracy of report, and competent staff. These quality indicators foster client-centeredness, access, safety, system effectiveness and efficiency, feasibility, and science; and are relevant to managing a system that is intended to serve people with disabilities.",
keywords = "Delphi exercise, disability evaluation, ICF, quality indicators, quality management",
author = "Chang, {Kwang Hwa} and Chi, {Wen Chou} and Liao, {Hua Fang} and Chen, {Shih Ching} and Chiou, {Hung Yi} and Reuben Escorpizo and Liou, {Tsan Hon}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/09638288.2018.1514536",
language = "English",
journal = "Disability and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0963-8288",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Development of indicators to assure quality of disability evaluation based on the International Classification of functioning, disability, and health in Taiwan

T2 - a Delphi consensus

AU - Chang, Kwang Hwa

AU - Chi, Wen Chou

AU - Liao, Hua Fang

AU - Chen, Shih Ching

AU - Chiou, Hung Yi

AU - Escorpizo, Reuben

AU - Liou, Tsan Hon

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) for managing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-based disability evaluation system in Taiwan. Method: Using a three-round Delphi exercise, 20 representatives from the social welfare associations for people with disability completed the consensus process. Questionnaire 1 comprised 52 potentially important factors relevant to good services for persons with disabilities in the system. An additional nine items were added to questionnaires 2 and 3. The responders rated the importance of each item using a 5-point Likert scale. The set of QIs for managing the system comprised items that obtained high consensus and a mean score ≥4.5 found in round 3. Results: Those QIs included a composite of measures about a comfortable and barrier-free assessment room, on-site assistance (being important for client access and safety), client’s privacy, rights protection, and satisfaction, convenient service, attitude of staff (towards client centeredness), accuracy of report (system effectiveness), and competent staff (system efficiency). Spearman’s rho (mean ± standard deviation) of round 3 was 0.79 ± 0.09, and Cronbach’s α = 0.90. Conclusions: This set of QIs is suitable for managing the system serving people with disabilities. It is feasible in practice and scientifically acceptable, but further validation is needed.Implications for rehabilitation With this study, we were able to develop a set of quality indicators for managing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based disability evaluation system. The set of quality indicators included a composite of measures about a comfortable and barrier-free assessment room and on-site assistance; client’s privacy, rights protection, and satisfaction, convenient service, attitude of staff; accuracy of report, and competent staff. These quality indicators foster client-centeredness, access, safety, system effectiveness and efficiency, feasibility, and science; and are relevant to managing a system that is intended to serve people with disabilities.

AB - Purpose: To develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) for managing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-based disability evaluation system in Taiwan. Method: Using a three-round Delphi exercise, 20 representatives from the social welfare associations for people with disability completed the consensus process. Questionnaire 1 comprised 52 potentially important factors relevant to good services for persons with disabilities in the system. An additional nine items were added to questionnaires 2 and 3. The responders rated the importance of each item using a 5-point Likert scale. The set of QIs for managing the system comprised items that obtained high consensus and a mean score ≥4.5 found in round 3. Results: Those QIs included a composite of measures about a comfortable and barrier-free assessment room, on-site assistance (being important for client access and safety), client’s privacy, rights protection, and satisfaction, convenient service, attitude of staff (towards client centeredness), accuracy of report (system effectiveness), and competent staff (system efficiency). Spearman’s rho (mean ± standard deviation) of round 3 was 0.79 ± 0.09, and Cronbach’s α = 0.90. Conclusions: This set of QIs is suitable for managing the system serving people with disabilities. It is feasible in practice and scientifically acceptable, but further validation is needed.Implications for rehabilitation With this study, we were able to develop a set of quality indicators for managing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based disability evaluation system. The set of quality indicators included a composite of measures about a comfortable and barrier-free assessment room and on-site assistance; client’s privacy, rights protection, and satisfaction, convenient service, attitude of staff; accuracy of report, and competent staff. These quality indicators foster client-centeredness, access, safety, system effectiveness and efficiency, feasibility, and science; and are relevant to managing a system that is intended to serve people with disabilities.

KW - Delphi exercise

KW - disability evaluation

KW - ICF

KW - quality indicators

KW - quality management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059337649&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059337649&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09638288.2018.1514536

DO - 10.1080/09638288.2018.1514536

M3 - Article

JO - Disability and Rehabilitation

JF - Disability and Rehabilitation

SN - 0963-8288

ER -