Assessing Function: Does It Really Make a Difference? A Preliminary Evaluation of the Acceptability and Utility of the COOP Function Charts

Part of the Frontiers of Primary Care book series (PRIMARY)


Despite the intuitive appeal of functionally oriented, health care management, the clinical utility of routine functional assessment remains questionable. The Dartmouth COOP project, a primary care research network, has developed a practical, reliable, valid Chart System for use in busy clinical practices. The goal of the current study was to assess its potential clinical utility and acceptability to patients and clinicians.


Health Status Measure Potential Clinical Utility Kaiser Family Foundation Chart System Chart Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cluff L: Chronic disease, function and quality care. J Chron Dis. 34: 299–304, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deyo RA, Inui TS: Toward clinical applications of health status measures: Sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Services Res. 19 (3): 275–289, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kane RA, Kane RL: Assessing the Elderly, New York, Lexington Books, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sage WM, Hurst CR, Silverman JF, Bortz WM: Intensive care for the elderly: Outcome of elective and non-elective admissions. J Am Geriat So. 35: 312–318, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mackenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K: A patient-specific measure of change in maximal function. Arch Int Med. 146: 1325–1329, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker FB, Novack DH, Kaiser DL, et al.: Anxiety and depression among medical and surgical patients nearing hospital discharge. J Gen Int Med. 2: 99–101, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wasson JH, Sauvigne AE, Balestia D, et al.: Capitation for medical care: The importance of health status in older patients. Med Care. 25 (10): 1002–1005, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomas JW, Lichtenstein R: Including health status in Medicare adjusted average per capita cost capitation formula. Med Care. 24 (3): 259–275, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pinhold EM, Kroenke K, Hanley JF, et al.: Functional assessment of the elderly: A comparison of standard instruments with clinical judgement. Arch Intern Med. 147: 484–488, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis TC, Nathan RG, Crouch MA, Bairnsfather LE: Screening depression in primary care: Back to the basics with a new tool. Fam Med. 19: 200–202, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    German PS, Shapiro S, Skinner EA, et al.: Detection and management of mental health problems of older patients by primary care providers. JAMA. 257 (4): 489–493, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDermott W: Absence of indicators of the influence of its physicians on a society’s health. Am J Med. 70: 833–843, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McDermott W: Absence of indicators of the influence of its physicians on a society’s health. Am J Med. 70: 833–843, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nelson EC, Berwick DM: The measurement of health status in clinical practice. Med Care. 27 (3): 577–590, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nelson EC, Landgraf JM, Hays RD, et al.: Dartmouth COOP proposal to develop and demonstrate a system to assess functional health status in physicians’ offices. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Final Report Grant # 85–3180, October 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelson EC, Wasson JH, Kirk JW: Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: Description of the COOP Chart method and preliminary findings. J Chron Dis. 40(S1):55S–63S, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations