Home › Research › Treatments
Recording care time in nursing homes: development and validation of the "RUD-FOCA" (Resource Utilization in Dementia-Formal Care)
Luttenberger K, Graessel E.. International psychogeriatrics, 2010-05-18
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Currently there is no standardized procedure for recording direct care time of dementia patients in a nursing home. Recording the direct care time, however, provides an important component of both cost estimates for time-dependent reimbursement of nursing activities and for recording the degree of dependency as an outcome measure for the efficiency of new treatment methods for dementia patients. The purpose of this study is thus to develop and validate the "RUD-FOCA" (Resource Utilization in Dementia - Formal Care), based on the RUD lite, as a standardized tool to measure the direct care time actually required in the nursing home. Methods Based on four hypotheses, construct validity was tested within a randomized controlled trial in a sample of 148 residents in six German nursing homes. The RUD-FOCA records the care time in three areas: activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and supervision. For validation, the residents' capabilities were examined using the Barthel Index, the Nurses' Observation Scale on Geriatric Patients (NOSGER), the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS), the Erlangen Test on Activities of Daily Living (E-ADL) and the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE). The hypotheses assume relationships between the time required for care in the three areas and the limitations involved in these areas. The retest reliability was also determined. Results ADL care accounts for two-thirds of total care time in the homes. The hypotheses which refer to total time, ADL and supervision are supported by differentiated correlation profiles. The IADL hypothesis is not supported owing to even, low correlations. The retest reliability was r = 0.76 for the entire care time. Conclusions Overall time and the times for ADL care and supervision can be considered valid estimates. The validity is lowest for recording IADL times. Thus, the RUD-FOCA is suitable as an instrument to determine the direct care time in the nursing home. Recording IADL times should be improved by detailed operationalization.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Luttenberger, K., & Graessel, E. (2010). Recording care time in nursing homes: development and validation of the "RUD-FOCA" (Resource Utilization in Dementia-Formal Care). International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610210000487
Vancouver
Luttenberger K, Graessel E. Recording care time in nursing homes: development and validation of the "RUD-FOCA" (Resource Utilization in Dementia-Formal Care). International psychogeriatrics. 2010. doi:10.1017/s1041610210000487. PMID: 20478097.
BibTeX
@article{luttenberger2010-20478097,
author = {Luttenberger, K. and Graessel, E.},
title = {{Recording care time in nursing homes: development and validation of the "RUD-FOCA" (Resource Utilization in Dementia-Formal Care)}},
journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1017/s1041610210000487},
pmid = {20478097},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610210000487}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results ADL care accounts for two-thirds of total care time in the homes.
- Conclusions Overall time and the times for ADL care and supervision can be considered valid estimates.
Why it matters
This study developed and validated a tool for measuring the direct care time that nursing home residents with dementia actually need. It does not test any treatment, so it does not show whether any therapy works to treat, cure or prevent Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 51/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International psychogeriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | International Psychogeriatrics: journal h-index 161 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | 3 / 7 | Cited 22 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.2 citations a year over 18 year(s) since 2010 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 1.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Elmar Graessel: h-index 36 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | Universitätsklinikum Erlangen: institution h-index 594 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20478097) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 51 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — Unpaywall lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “care”
996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.