Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This paper provides a broad overview of the assessment of health status in clinical practice in three parts. Yesterday: The nation has undergone a paradigm shift in health-related thinking. The former paradigm emphasized only disease; the new emphasizes health, functioning, well-being, and disease. Measures of health and disease have evolved to reflect the new paradigm. Many are designed for clinical settings, based on measurement science, and are relatively brief. These newer measures have been used to document the natural history of disease, evaluate treatment effectiveness, and improve clinical case management. Today: Two barriers block full-scale use in clinical settings. The first barrier involves the meaning and interpretation of health status scores. Patients' scores are influenced by several types of patient mix variables and the timing of measurements. Interpretation is enhanced by valid normative data displaying the variability in health status among homogenous patient groups. The second barrier is utilization and mainstreaming. It involves all of the issues associated with changing the day-to-day behavior of clinicians and providers' routine processes to facilitate routine use of health status measures in clinical settings. Tomorrow: In the next decade, the nation will attempt to overhaul the health care system. As it does so, it will struggle with many issues: 1) clarifying the true aim of health care; 2) standardizing measures of health across patients, providers, and settings to evaluate benefit; 3) establishing cause and effect among structural-input factors, care delivery processes, and health outcomes valued by society; and 4) determining if and when cost containment actions have adverse effects on health outcomes. In this context, the importance of interpreting change in health status has a central role.
Greenfield et al. (Fri,) studied this question.