Assessing health status and outcomes in a geriatric day hospital

The study objective was to assess the feasibility and usefulness of recommended outcome measures in older people attending a geriatric day hospital for multidisciplinary assessment and rehabilitation. We used the 'Short Form 36' (SF36) questionnaire which had been proposed as a suitable outcome tool for the elderly, as well as standard assessment scales (eg Barthel index). These were administered by interviewers at the start of day hospital attendance and repeated by postal survey three and six months later. Change in overall health status was rated by the clinical team. The study took place in a geriatric day unit based in a support hospital, specialising in assessment and rehabilitation of older people. Participants were older people referred directly from the community, or following an inpatient day, whose assessment indicated a need for multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Stroke and musculo-skeletal disorders were the commonest underlying conditions. There was a high incidence of non-completion on SF36 questions relating to physical and mental function. Subsequent interviews showed that patients found some questions irrelevant. Floor effects were common. In contrast, the standard scales were invariably fully completed. Compared with local population survey data, respondents had low baseline scores on all SF36 dimensions. Differences over time were probably explained by varying methods of administration. In spite of a clinical perception of improved health status during day hospital attendance, both standard and SF36 scores showed overall deterioration. Two conclusions could be drawn from this study. 1. Measures of physical and mental disability and quality of life gave lower results than expected and continued declining over a six month period, even when the clinical team felt that the patient had improved. 2. Administration of SF36 by an interviewer is essential to obtain meaningful results in older people with poor physical health, which should be interpreted with caution. Goal-specific measures may be more useful in this group of patients.