Using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set to Measure Patient Health Status in Research: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: To review, evaluate, and synthesize existing literature on how health status changes were measured using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS).
Design: Systematic review.
Setting and Participants: Studies were included if they examined the health status of adult patients at 2 or more time points using OASIS, which is a comprehensive assessment tool mandated for home health (HH) patients.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool.
Results: The initial search yielded 1587 citations, resulting in 27 eligible studies published between 2005 and 2022. All included studies were retrospective cohort studies, with overall quality ranging from good to fair. These studies primarily targeted patients with heart failure, with sample sizes between 40 and 6,637,497 and mean ages of 61.2 to 82.4 years. OASIS version C was the most used version, comparing health status at admission and discharge. Patient health status outcomes encompassed functional (n = 24), physiological (n = 6), emotional/behavioral (n = 4), and cognitive (n = 2) outcomes. Various techniques were employed for scale standardization, compositing individual scores, measuring changes, and reporting outcomes. The predominant methods for assessing change included the corrected Likert scale for standardization, composite change scores for change calculation, and continuous outcomes for reporting.
Conclusion and Implications: Researchers have used OASIS to assess patient health status changes in functional, physiological, emotional/behavioral, and cognitive outcomes during the HH episode. Variations in OASIS items and assessment methods across studies have been observed. Our findings underscore the need to standardize item application in research, enabling researchers to synthesize evidence effectively and enhance understanding of patient recovery and HH services. For policymakers and health care providers, these insights could inform resource allocation, care planning, and tailored interventions, ultimately improving health care quality and efficiency.
Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)