Geriatric Assessment Methods for Clinical Decision Making

National Institutes of Health (US). Office for Medical Applications of Research

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Institutes of Health (US). Office for Medical Applications of Research. NIH Consensus Statements [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health (US); 1977-2002.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

NIH Consensus Statements [Internet].

Show details

Contents

< Prev Next >

65Geriatric Assessment Methods for Clinical Decision Making

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement October 19-21, 1987

Introduction

The population of elderly persons in the developed nations is growing with extraordinary rapidity. Although the majority enjoy good health, many older people suffer from multiple illnesses and significant disability. Comprehensive assessment methodologies, while not solely applicable to frail elderly persons, are believed to be particularly suited to their situation. These individuals tend to exhibit great medical complexity and vulnerability; have illnesses with atypical and obscure presentations; suffer major cognitive, affective, and functional problems; are especially vulnerable to iatrogenesis; are often socially isolated and economically deprived; and are at high risk for premature or inappropriate institutionalization.

To deal with the exceedingly difficult health care issues posed by frail elderly persons, health professionals need to collect, organize, and use a vast array of clinically relevant information. This process, comprehensive geriatric assessment, is defined as a multidisciplinary evaluation in which the multiple problems of older persons are uncovered, described, and explained, if possible, and in which the resources and strengths of the person are catalogued, need for services assessed, and a coordinated care plan developed to focus interventions on the person's problems.

Comprehensive geriatric assessment generally includes evaluation of the patient in several domains, most commonly the physical, mental, social, economic, functional, and environmental.

The term "functional" is used here in a narrow sense: It means the ability to function in the arena of everyday living. The panel recognizes that the same word has been used in the much broader sense of the whole range of functions we have listed just above. In other words, some use "functional assessment" to mean what we have termed "comprehensive geriatric assessment."

When applied to clinical decision making, comprehensive geriatric assessment involves clinicians from the many health care professions who are necessarily involved in good geriatric care. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is only one component of general geriatric care. Appropriate geriatric care involves some level of assessment of the multiple domains just cited, but comprehensive geriatric assessment tends to be applied only to a subset of older persons who are frail and considered most likely to benefit (see question 3). It has been suggested that a new form of comprehensive assessment could be developed to evaluate physical fitness for purposes of monitoring health promotion and disease prevention in well older persons and another form to guide the humane care of irreversibly disabled and terminally ill older persons.

Between 1973 and 1987, reports have appeared on a significant number of true experiments exploring the elements and effectiveness of various approaches to geriatric assessment. The data from these studies, coupled with the growing numbers of frail elderly individuals, the high cost of their health care, the intensity of their distress and discomfort, and the great uncertainty as to the best route to wise clinical decision making, led to the current conference. The National Institute on Aging and the Office of Medical Applications of Research of the National Institutes of Health, in conjunction with the National Institute of Mental Health, the Veterans Administration, and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, convened the Consensus Development Conference on Geriatric Assessment Methods for Clinical Decision making on October 19-21, 1987. After a day and a half of presentations by experts in the field, a consensus panel including methodologists and representatives of medicine, nursing, social work, and the public considered the scientific evidence and developed answers to the following central questions:

What are the goals, structure, processes, and elements of geriatric assessment for clinical decision making?
What are the comparative merits of different methods in carrying out a geriatric assessment?
What is the evidence that a geriatric assessment is effective? If so, in what settings, for whom, and for which outcomes?
Insofar as a geriatric assessment is effective, what linkages to clinical management systems are required?
What are the priorities for future research in geriatric assessment?

Comprehensive geriatric assessment has been used for many nonclinical purposes, including research, education, health policy, and administration. This report focuses only on its use for clinical decision making.

What Are the Goals, Structure, Processes, and Elements of Geriatric Assessment for Clinical Decision Making?

Goals

The goals of comprehensive geriatric assessment are: (1) to improve diagnostic accuracy, (2) to guide the selection of interventions to restore or preserve health, (3) to recommend an optimal environment for care, (4) to predict outcomes, and (5) to monitor clinical change over time.

Structure

Comprehensive geriatric assessment may be done in many institutional settings, including acute care, psychiatric, or rehabilitation hospitals and nursing homes, and in ambulatory settings, including outpatient or freestanding clinics, the offices of primary care physicians, or in the patient's home. It often has been applied to elderly persons at critical transition points in their lives, including actual or threatened decline in health and functional status, impending change in living environment, bereavement, or other unusual stress.

Processes

Comprehensive geriatric assessment is initiated by a referral from one of a number of sources (see question 4). In addition to the patient, the process often includes family members and other important persons in the individual's environment. It is conducted by a core team that consists, at a minimum, of a physician, nurse, and social worker, each with special expertise in caring for older people. Frequently, a psychiatrist is a member of the core team. The specific activities and contributions of each team member may vary considerably, and flexibility in roles may facilitate the assessment process.

The assessment begins with a case-finding approach that utilizes screening instruments and techniques. Based on these initial findings, a more detailed assessment is frequently undertaken. This in-depth assessment often requires the participation of a number of other professions. These may include audiology, clinical psychology, dentistry, nutrition, occupational therapy, optometry, pharmacy, physical therapy, podiatry, speech pathology, and the clergy. Support from other medical disciplines, such as neurology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, physiatry, surgery, and urology, is commonly needed.

Some aspects of geriatric assessment may be provided by self-rating scales completed by the patient or caregivers. Such information may lead to different insights than those obtained through external assessment performed by a member of the health care team.

Elements

Physical Health

A careful history is obtained from the patient and others with significant knowledge of the patient. Special attention is directed to the use of prescription and nonprescription medications and clues to the presence of malnutrition, falling, incontinence, and immobility. Data are gathered on smoking, exercise, alcohol use, immunization status, and sexual function. Also important is information regarding the patient's personal strengths, values, perceived quality of life, acceptability of interventions, and expected outcomes from his or her health care.

A physical examination is performed with emphasis on identification of specific diseases or conditions for which curative, restorative, palliative, or preventive treatment may be available. Special attention is directed toward visual or hearing impairment, nutritional status, and conditions that may contribute to falling or difficulty in ambulation. Laboratory tests and other diagnostic studies are obtained as indicated.

Mental Health

Cognitive, behavioral, and emotional status are evaluated. Detection of dementia, delirium, and depression is particularly important. A range of assessment instruments is available for these purposes. For some patients a detailed psychiatric interview, a neurobehavior consultation, or comprehensive neuropsychological testing is indicated.

Social and Economic Status

Evaluating the social support network includes identifying present and potential caregivers and assessing their competence, willingness to provide care, and acceptability to the older person. This information may be obtained by questionnaires, structured interviews, or other methods. The degree of caregiver stress and the caregiver's support network also are considered.

Areas of special importance to the individual, such as cultural, ethnic, and spiritual values, are noted. The individual's own assessment of the quality of life is recorded. The clinician evaluates the economic resources of the elderly person, which often determine access to medical and personal care and influence options for living arrangements.

Functional Status

There are several components to a comprehensive assessment of an older person's ability to function. Physical functioning usually is measured by the ability to accomplish basic activities of daily living (ADL), including bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, continence, and feeding.

Other components of functional well-being are behavioral and social activities that require a higher level of cognition and judgment than physical activities. These instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) include preparation of meals, shopping, light housework, financial management, medication management, use of transportation, and use of the telephone.

Functional status (ADL and IADL) is probably most accurately evaluated by direct observation of the patient by family or health professionals in the home or a simulated homelike environment. However, surprisingly accurate information is also obtained by standardized questionnaire or self-report.

Environmental Characteristics

Evaluating the patient's physical environment is essential. Home visits and questionnaires are used to determine the safety, physical barriers, and layout of the home as well as access to services, such as shopping, pharmacy, transportation, and recreation.

Development and Implementation of a Care Plan

Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a dynamic, ongoing process. After the initial assessment, the team generates a comprehensive list of the patient's needs and strengths, usually at a multidisciplinary case conference. Recommendations are integrated into an individualized plan of interventions and desired outcomes. The preferences of the patient and family must be especially carefully considered at this stage in the process. If the assessment takes place in an inpatient facility, treatment and rehabilitation are often initiated in that facility, sometimes directly by members of the team on a specialized unit. In consultative models, the team's recommendations are transmitted to the appropriate primary care providers. Regardless of the site of assessment or the primary responsibility for implementation of the recommended regimen, periodic reassessment and appropriate modification of the care plan are central elements of the process of comprehensive geriatric assessment.

What Are the Comparative Merits of Different Methods in Carrying Out a Geriatric Assessment?

Many assessment methods for specific domains have undergone rigorous validation, and the criteria for acceptance of a given method have been carefully defined. However, in domains in which there are multiple validated instruments to measure the same function, there have not yet been studies that directly compare one method to another. As a result, identification of the single best instrument in each domain is not possible at this time. One of the first steps in establishing a program of geriatric assessment is deciding upon a standardized approach to data collection. Before choosing from among the different methods, clinicians should consider some of the following issues.

In the context of comprehensive geriatric assessment, there is a role for both structured and unstructured methods of data gathering. There are several merits of a structured approach. Precision, reproducibility, and freedom from bias are enhanced by using standardized validated questions and requiring the respondent to choose from a limited number of answers. The task of data collection is more easily delegated if the format is standardized. Standardized data collection methods help in clinical decision making and prospective evaluation of the efficacy of interventions. On the other hand, merits of unstructured methods include flexibility of the testing procedure, ability to probe problems in detail, and the opportunity for synthesis of findings to develop a global impression.

A number of assessment instruments have been shown individually to have good reliability and validity. A reliable instrument is internally consistent and provides the same evaluation of the patient when used by different raters. A valid instrument measures correctly the domain being investigated. In addition to quantitatively measured validity and reliability, an instrument should have face validity (i.e., on the "face of it" the instrument appears to measure the domain correctly). Although some characteristics of patients who will benefit from a given type of assessment have been identified, there are no validated instruments for predicting benefit.

One approach to developing a comprehensive geriatric assessment program is to select one of several multidimensional instruments designed to address all major domains of geriatric assessment. Alternatively, specific assessment instruments developed for each domain can be combined to accomplish a comprehensive assessment. There is no evidence that either approach is superior to the other.

Desirable characteristics of instruments for case finding are efficiency, simplicity, flexibility for use under a variety of circumstances, and portability. Case-finding requires less sophistication from the examiner than in-depth assessment and is relatively inexpensive. There are reliable and valid instruments with which to assess mental function, socioeconomic status, and ADL. Each instrument has a specific range of usefulness. For example, assessment of ADL reliably detects advanced degrees of functional impairment but is quite unlikely to detect minimal departures from normalcy.

In-depth geriatric assessment methods need to have high predictive value, detect small changes in function, identify potentially remediable problems, and efficiently predict patient outcomes. Special expertise is often required to carry out an in-depth assessment.

Three additional issues should be addressed. First, in-depth assessments (and consequent interventions) must take patients' values into account. Second, comprehensive assessment methods should accurately reflect change in patient status over time. Most existing methods do not meet this need. Finally, while it is possible to educate a variety of health care professionals to carry out various aspects of comprehensive assessment, experience and leadership are required in the individual or individuals responsible for supervising the assessment effort.

What Is the Evidence That a Geriatric Assessment Is Effective? If So, in What Settings, for Whom, and for Which Outcomes?

Accumulated evidence indicates with moderate-to-high confidence that comprehensive geriatric assessment is effective when coupled with ongoing implementation of the resulting care plan.

The settings in which effectiveness has been convincingly demonstrated are the combined geriatric assessment and rehabilitation unit and the inpatient geriatric assessment unit. There is less consistent evidence regarding the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment in the home, ambulatory setting, and the hospital inpatient consultation service.

As practiced, comprehensive geriatric assessment has been demonstrated to be effective for a variety of desirable outcomes. Studies to test effectiveness have varied in design from descriptive (before versus after) to match control to the most persuasive form, randomized controlled trials.

Outcomes favorably affected by comprehensive geriatric assessment, as demonstrated by randomized controlled trials, have included improved diagnostic accuracy, prolonged survival, reduced annual medical care costs, reduced use of acute hospitals, and reduced nursing home use. These have been most consistently demonstrated. Less consistently reported benefits include increased use of health and social services delivered in the home, reduced medications, and improved placement location, affect and cognition, and functional status. Other outcomes of great importance (e.g., quality of life) have not been studied adequately.

Two aspects of comprehensive geriatric assessment appear to be of central importance. The first of these is targeting of the process to those persons most likely to benefit, a feature of most successful programs and one strongly endorsed by experienced program leaders. In the inpatient setting, targeting has focused on patients over age 75 and those with potentially reversible disabilities. This target group may account for as much as 10 to 25 percent of hospitalized elderly patients. Most studies demonstrating effectiveness have excluded groups whom the investigators thought least likely to benefit, notably persons who are fully independent and those with end-stage disease or disability. Several programs have focused on elderly persons at points of transition or instability, as cited under question 1.

The role of targeting in comprehensive geriatric assessment conducted outside the hospital setting is less clear. Certain U.S. studies have failed to demonstrate favorable outcomes in ambulatory settings. This result may be attributable to ineffective targeting. However, two European studies of randomly selected, community-dwelling persons reported efficacy of comprehensive geriatric assessment without targeting other than for advanced age, suggesting the possibility of expanding the use of these techniques to a broader population in this country.

The second important aspect of comprehensive geriatric assessment appears to be the link between assessment and followup services (also discussed under question 4). Successful programs have been able to assure adoption of treatment recommendations reached during the initial assessment. In some programs, the assessment team has assumed direct control over treatment of the patients, while in others the followup has involved active and ongoing consultation and communication with primary care providers. The failure to provide sufficient linkage between assessment and followup may provide another explanation for negative results reported in certain studies. In addition, these negative results may be due to an insufficiently comprehensive assessment or intervention (e.g., failure to include medical evaluation) or to the use of instruments insensitive to changes that actually may have occurred.

Additional elements of the comprehensive geriatric assessment to which effectiveness has been attributed by developers of successful programs deserve attention. Such elements include focus upon content areas in which geriatric expertise is acknowledged: malnutrition, mental impairment, immobility, iatrogenesis (notably polypharmacy), impaired homeostasis, and incontinence. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the comprehensive geriatric assessment appears to be more than the sum of its parts, perhaps because of the integrative nature of the process and the multidisciplinary discussion that translates the information gathered into a rational plan of care. Finally, it has also been suggested that the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment is at least partly attributable to the enthusiasm and caring attitude of those who have developed these programs.

Insofar as a Geriatric Assessment Is Effective, What Linkages to Clinical Management Systems Are Required?

Comprehensive geriatric assessment programs should not be viewed as operating independently from other elements of the health care system. Geriatric assessment is a dynamic process responsive to the changes in health status that occur over time. Therefore, a method for assessing effectiveness of interventions over time and for detecting new problems must be provided. A broad approach is needed to ensure that community case-finding identifies the at-risk population and links comprehensive geriatric assessment to subsequent provision of services.

In the absence of a community case-finding program, patients are referred for comprehensive geriatric assessment from a variety of sources, most commonly relatives and community service agencies. Less common sources of referral are the patients themselves, friends, and physicians. Health maintenance organizations and other managed care organizations, as well as nursing homes, may be increasingly important referral sources in the future.

Ongoing monitoring of the implementation of recommendations made during comprehensive geriatric assessment is believed to be central to the success of the care plan. The role of linkages to clinical management systems in the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment has not been directly tested. However, continuing personal contact of hospital geriatric assessment consultants with the patients and their primary providers does appear to facilitate the implementation of recommendations. Case management as a process to provide linkages is available in many communities, and its role in ensuring followup of recommendations requires further investigation. Clearly, the availability of a wide array of social services is a requirement for successful implementation of a comprehensive geriatric care plan.

What Are the Priorities for Future Research in Geriatric Assessment?

Although past research on comprehensive geriatric assessment has provided much valuable information, many questions remain unanswered. Existing studies have demonstrated that effective services can be provided, but these services consist of combinations of activities that have been selected on an empiric basis. Future research can define more carefully which elements of these packages--perhaps all of them--contribute importantly to achieving the observed results. Earlier studies have been site-specific and have incompletely assessed the range of patients who might benefit from these activities. Finally, important measurement problems persist. Thus, key future steps in research include the following:

Conduct multicenter, randomized controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment, including both academic and nonacademic settings, addressing the above-cited gaps in our knowledge.
Extend the use of randomized controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment to other outcomes, particularly quality of life, effect on family, and cost-effectiveness.
Extend the use of randomized controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment to other settings, particularly the home and the nursing home.
Determine the most effective means for targeting of comprehensive geriatric assessments in a broad patient population.
Use controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment to evaluate the effect of different combinations of personnel, instruments, and interventions.
Compare the effects of assessment with and without various methods for coordinated implementation of the care plan.
Develop new assessment tools for measuring levels of and changes in functional status, particularly for those with mild-to-moderate levels of impairment.
Directly compare instruments that assess information within the same domain.
Develop data bases with which to establish patterns of changing function, especially in persons who spend time in long-term care institutions.

Conclusions

The settings, uses, processes, personnel, and component domains of comprehensive geriatric assessment have been defined with sufficient clarity to provide guidelines for establishment of new assessment programs.

Accumulated evidence indicates with moderate-to-high confidence that comprehensive geriatric assessment is effective when coupled with ongoing implementation of the resulting care plan.

Effectiveness has been most convincingly demonstrated in two inpatient settings, the geriatric assessment unit and the combined geriatric assessment-rehabilitation unit.

The most consistently demonstrated favorable outcomes of comprehensive geriatric assessment have been prolonged survival, reduced annual medical care costs, and reduced use of acute hospitals and nursing homes.

Although the evidence allows for alternative interpretation, it is probable that careful selection of patients has contributed importantly to the ability to demonstrate benefit from comprehensive geriatric assessment.

In view of the seemingly indispensable role of monitoring and implementation of the care plan in achieving desired outcomes, ongoing health care should be linked systematically to the process of comprehensive geriatric assessment.

Consensus Development Panel

David H. Solomon, M.D.
Panel and Conference Chairperson
Professor of Medicine
Associate Director
Multicampus Division of Geriatric Medicine
University of California at Los Angeles School of
Medicine
Los Angeles, California

A. Sue Brown, M.S.W.
Administrator
Long-Term Care Administration
District of Columbia Department of Human Services
Commission of Public Health
Washington, D.C.

Kenneth Brummel-Smith, M.D.
Associate Professor of Clinical Family Medicine
Director
Section of Geriatrics
Department of Family Medicine
University of Southern California
Co-Chief
Clinical Gerontology Service
Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center
Downey, California

Lavola Burgess
Member
Board of Directors
American Association of Retired Persons
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Ralph B. D'Agostino, Ph.D.
Chairman
Mathematics Department
Professor of Mathematics, Statistics, and Public Health
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts

John W. Goldschmidt, M.D.
Medical Director
National Rehabilitation Hospital
Washington, D.C.

Jeffrey B. Halter, M.D.
Professor of Internal Medicine
Chief
Division of Geriatric Medicine
Medical Director
Institute of Gerontology
University of Michigan and Veterans Administration Medical Centers
Ann Arbor, Michigan

William R. Hazzard, M.D.
Chairman and Professor
Department of Medicine
Bowman Gray School of Medicine
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Dennis W. Jahnigen, M.D.
Head
Section of Geriatric Medicine
Department of Internal Medicine
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Cleveland, Ohio

Charles Phelps, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and Political Science
Director
Public Policy Analysis Program
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York

Murray Raskind, M.D.
Professor and Vice Chairman for Research and Development
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
University of Washington School of Medicine
Seattle, Washington

Robert W. Schrier, M.D.
Professor and Chairman
Department of Medicine
University of Colorado School of Medicine
Denver, Colorado

Harold C. Sox, Jr., M.D.
Professor of Medicine
Division of General Internal Medicine
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, California

Sankey V. Williams, M.D.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Section of General Medicine
Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

May Wykle, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N.
Professor and Chairperson
Psychiatric/Mental Health Nursing and Gerontological Nursing
Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio

Speakers

Toni C. Antonucci, Ph.D.
"Qualitative Aspects of Social Supports, Personal Resources, and Environment: Implications for Health Care Providers"
Associate Research Scientist
Institute for Social Research
Assistant Professor
University of Michigan School of Medicine
Ann Arbor, Michigan

William B. Applegate, M.D., M.P.H.
"A Hospital-Based Geriatric Assessment Unit"
Professor of Medicine and Preventive Medicine
University of Tennessee at Memphis
Memphis, Tennessee

Ronald D. Bayne, M.D., F.R.C.P.(C), F.A.C.P.
"Canadian Models of Geriatric Assessment"
Professor of Medicine (Gerontology)
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario
CANADA

Lisa F. Berkman, Ph.D.
"Social Networks and Social Support: Moving Towards an Appropriate Geriatric Assessment"
Associate Professor of Epidemiology
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, Connecticut

Richard W. Besdine, M.D.
"General Medical Evaluation"
Travelers Professor of Geriatrics and Gerontology Director
Travelers Center on Aging
University of Connecticut Health Center School of
Medicine
Farmington, Connecticut

Dan G. Blazer II, M.D., Ph.D.
"Assessment of Cognitive and Behavioral Status"
Professor of Psychiatry
Director
Affective Disorders Program
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina

Edward W. Campion, M.D.
"Geriatric Inpatient Consultation"
Chief
Geriatrics Unit
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Leo M. Cooney, Jr., M.D.
"Geriatric Assessment in the Long-Term Care Setting"
Professor of Medicine
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, Connecticut

Gerald M. Eggert, Ph.D.
"The Evolution of a Communitywide Assessment System"
Executive Director
Monroe County Long-Term Care Program, Inc./ACCESS
East Rochester, New York

Arnold M. Epstein, M.D.
"Geriatric Assessment Units for Ambulatory Elderly Patients in a Health Maintenance Organization"
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Member
Institute for Health Research
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston, Massachusetts

Alvan R. Feinstein, M.D.
"Summary of Methodology"
Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, Connecticut

Barry J. Gurland, M.D.
"Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Instruments"
John E. Borne Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
Director
Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology
Columbia University
New York, New York

Sidney Katz, M.D.
"Functional Assessment in Geriatrics"
Professor of Bio-architectonics
Bio-architectonics Center
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
Cleveland, Ohio

M. Powell Lawton, Ph.D.
"Behavioral and Social Components of Functional Capacity"
Director of Research
Philadelphia Geriatric Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael A. Nevins, M.D.
"Report on American College of Physicians Meeting on Geriatric Assessment"
Chairman
Subcommittee on Aging
American College of Physicians
Rivervale, New Jersey

Barbara R. Phillips, Ph.D.
"Geriatric Assessment in the National Long-Term Care Channeling Demonstration"
Senior Researcher
Mathematica Policy Research
Princeton, New Jersey

Laurence Z. Rubenstein, M.D., M.P.H.
"Hospital-Based Geriatric Assessment: The Sepulveda Veterans Administration Geriatric Evaluation Unit"
Associate Professor of Medicine
University of California at Los Angeles School of
Medicine
Clinical Director
GRECC
Veterans Administration Medical Center
Sepulveda, California

Knight Steel, M.D.
"The Home as a Model Setting for Geriatric Assessment"
Professor of Medicine
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts

Mark E. Williams, M.D.
"Outpatient Geriatric Assessment"
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Department of Medicine
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

T. Franklin Williams, M.D.
"Historical Perspective: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment"
Director
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

Carol Hutner Winograd, M.D.
"The Inpatient Model of Geriatric Consultation"
Assistant Professor of Medicine (Gerontology)
Stanford University
Director of Clinical Activities
Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center
Veterans Administration Medical Center
Pal Alto, California

Planning Committee

Knight Steel, M.D.
Planning Committee Cochairperson
Professor of Medicine
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts

T. Franklin Williams, M.D.
Planning Committee Cochairperson
Director
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

William B. Applegate, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor of Medicine and Preventive Medicine
University of Tennessee at Memphis
Memphis, Tennessee

Shirley P. Bagley
Assistant Director for Special
Programs
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

Michael J. Bernstein
Director of Communications
Office of Medical Applications of Research
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

Gene D. Cohen, M.D., Ph.D.
Director
Program on Aging
National Institute of Mental Health
National Institutes of Health
Rockville, Maryland

Jerry M. Elliott
Program Analyst
Office of Medical Applications of Research
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

Marsha E. Goodwin, R.N.-C., M.A., M.S.N.
Chief
Education and Training in Geriatrics
Veterans Administration
Washington, D.C.

Evan C. Hadley, M.D.
Chief
Geriatrics Branch
Biomedical Research and Clinical Medicine Program
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

Claire McCullough
Public Affairs Specialist
Public Information Office
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

Edwin Olsen, M.D.
Assistant Chief Medical Director
Geriatrics and Extended Care
Veterans Administration
Washington, D.C.

Lot B. Page, M.D.
Assistant Director for International Activities
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

L. Gregory Pawlson, M.D., M.P.H.
Director
Center for Aging Studies and Services
George Washington University
Medical Center
Washington, D.C.

Martin Rose, M.D.
Former Chief Medical Officer
Office of Medical Applications of Research
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland

David H. Solomon, M.D.
Panel and Conference Chairperson
Professor of Medicine
Associate Director
Multicampus Division of Geriatric Medicine
University of California at Los Angeles
School of Medicine
Los Angeles, California

Conference Sponsors

National Institute on Aging
T. Franklin Williams, M.D.
Director

National Institute of Mental Health
Frank J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Acting Director

Veterans Administration
Thomas K. Turnage
Administrator

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Alvin R. Tarlov, M.D.
President

NIH Office of Medical Applications of Research
William T. Friedewald, M.D.
Acting Director

: This statement was originally published as: Geriatric Assessment Methods for Clinical Decision making. NIH Consens Statement 1987 Oct 19-21;6(13):1-21.
: For making bibliographic reference to the statement in the electronic form displayed here, it is recommended that the following format be used: Geriatric Assessment Methods for Clinical Decision making. NIH Consens Statement Online 1987 Oct Online 19-21 [cited year month day];6(13):1-21.
: NIH Consensus Statements are prepared by a nonadvocate, non-Federal panel of experts, based on (1) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the consensus questions during a 2-day public session; (2) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session; and (3) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the consensus panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.

Bookshelf ID: NBK15129

Contents