Bibliography
Comparison of the responsiveness of the FIM and the interRAI post acute care assessment instrument in rehabilitation of older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 91(7):1038-43.
.
2010. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of the Cognitive Performance Scale (Minimum Data Set) and the Mini-Mental State Exam for the detection of cognitive impairment in nursing home residents. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 22(4):286-93.
.
2007. Comparison of selected pain assessment tools for use with the elderly. Applied Nursing Research. 6(1):39-46.
.
1993. Comparison of nurses and physicians documentation of functional abilities of older patients in acute care patient records compared with standardized assessment.. Scand J Careing Sci. 22:341-347.
.
2008. A Comparison of MDS/RAI Activity of Daily Living, Cognitive Performance and Depression Scales with widely used scales. Age and Ageing. 28(S2):29.
.
1999. A comparison of home care quality indicator rates in two Canadian provinces. BMC Health Services Research. 14:37-37.
.
2014. A comparison of home care clients and nursing home residents: can community based care keep the elderly and disabled at home? Home Health Care Services Quarterly. 18(1):25-45.
.
1999. Comparison of drug therapy on nursing home admission and at six months with the application of STOPP/START criteria version 2. European Geriatric Medicine. 8(Supplement 1):S213.
.
2017. [ Comparison of BESA and RAI: evaluating the outcomes of two assessment instruments for long-term residential care needs]. Pflege. 27(1):31-40.
.
2014. Comparison of 10 single and stepped methods to identify frail older persons in primary care: diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. BMC Family Practice. 17
.
2016. A comparison between end-of-life home care clients with cancer and heart failure in Ontario. Home Health Care Serv Q. 34(1):14-29.
.
2015. Comparing the functional independence measure and the interRAI/MDS for use in the functional assessment of older adults: a review of the literature. BMC Geriatr. 9:52.
.
2009. Comparing the characteristics of people living with and without HIV in long-term care and home care in Ontario, Canada. AIDS Care - Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV. 27(20):1343-1353.
.
2015. Comparing the care needs of people living with and without HIV in Canadian home and long-term care settings. Canada Communicable Disease Report. 42(3):52-56.
.
2016. Comparing staffing levels in the Online Survey Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) system with the Medicaid Cost Report data: are differences systematic? Gerontologist. 47(4):480-9.
.
2007. Comparing psychogeriatric units to ordinary long-term care units - are there differences in case-mix or clinical symptoms? Nord J Psychiatry. 62(1):32-8.
.
2008. Comparing post-acute rehabilitation use, length of stay, and outcomes experienced by Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with hip fracture in the United States: A secondary analysis of administrative data. PLoS medicine. 15(6):e1002592-e1002592.
.
2018. Comparing case-mix systems for nursing home payment. Health Care Financing Review. 11(4):103-19.
.
1990. Comparing care planning - care plans in home care.. Japanese Journal of Home Care Nursing. 4(3):179-188.
.
1999. Comparing activities of daily living assessment instruments: FIM, MDS, OASIS, MDS-PAC.. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics. 18(3):1-25.
.
2001. .
2008. A comparative analysis of eligibility criteria for long term care placement: developing a new algorithm for Ontario, Waterloo.. University of Waterloo: MA Thesis.
.
1997. A comparative analysis of comprehensive geriatric assessments for nursing home residents receiving palliative care: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 15(7):467-476.
.
2014. Comparative analysis between two instruments for clinical evaluation: O Q 45.2 and interRAI Mental Health. Rev Chil Neuro-Psiquiat. 46(3):192-198.
.
2008. Comorbidity patterns in institutionalized older adults affected by dementia. Alzheimer's and Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment and Disease Monitoring. 14(1):e12320.
.
2022.