Goal Attainment Scales (GAS) capture outcomes relevant to individual patients and provide “real-world” outcome measurement. This abstract will describe the background to their use, their operationalization, strengths and limitations. Traditional outcome measures assess a standardised set of questions regardless of their relevance to each patient. GAS overcomes these weaknesses because it is an individualised assessment based on achievement of goals which are personalto each patient. Despite its widely cited use in academic literature and good psychometric properties it is rarely used in drug intervention studies. Operationalisation of GAS varies but follows these basic steps: 1) The patient’s specific problem areas are assessed and goals for each defined; 2) A GAS for each goal is created and an “expected outcome” for each agreed; 3) Goal attainment levels are defined for each point on, typically, a 5-point scale (expected outcomes are usually scored 0; baseline is often -2, but may be -1 or 0 depending on potential for deterioration). Each level must be carefully described in a way that is relevant, observable, measurable and consistent with study design. Published standardised goals are available; and 4) A standardized statistical formula provides overall goal attainment. Benefits include: ease of use; relevant goals; no redundant items; assessment of multiple domains; provides quantifiable and applicable outcomes across different conditions and severities; potentially more sensitive measure than traditional scales. Limitations include: potential bias; appropriate goal selection and outcome prediction; observable changes may differ from pre-defined outcomes; time consuming; may require independent GAS assessors for blinded trials; may require “control” goals not affected by treatment; statistical issues around single overall score. In capturing those outcomes relevant to each individual patient, GAS has potential use in supporting product labeling claims and value assessment of a medicine by HTA and payers.