识别神经心理受损的医生

V. D. Del Bene, J. Brandt
{"title":"识别神经心理受损的医生","authors":"V. D. Del Bene, J. Brandt","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2019.1666922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: With the increasing focus on reducing medical errors and the aging of the physician workforce has come growing concern for cognitive impairment among physicians. This study sought to establish and validate an approach to detecting neuropsychological impairment among physicians. Method: The neuropsychological test performance of 30 physicians referred clinically for neuropsychological evaluations was compared to that of 39 normal community-practicing urologists. We derived 9 key variables from the cognitive and motor tests as dependent variables. Impairment among the clinically-referred doctors was operationalized as scoring ≤5th percentile of the community physicians on at least 3, 4, 5, or 6 of the 9 variables. Using this approach, all clinically-referred physicians were classified as either “impaired” or “ambiguous.” Results: A cutoff of ≥5 impaired test scores provided the best balance among competing models. Using this criterion, 14 of the clinically-referred doctors (46%) were impaired and 16 remained ambiguous. The impaired physicians: (1) were older, (2) were more often suspected of having a neurodegenerative disorder, and (3) were more likely to have discontinued practicing medicine. These findings serve as initial validation of our methodology. Conclusions: Using conservative criteria derived from normal community physicians, we could identify a substantial subgroup of clinically-referred physicians who are unambiguously neurocognitively impaired. Replication and refinement of our method with larger samples are recommended, as are the development of specialty-specific criteria for impairment.","PeriodicalId":197334,"journal":{"name":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying neuropsychologically impaired physicians\",\"authors\":\"V. D. Del Bene, J. Brandt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13854046.2019.1666922\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective: With the increasing focus on reducing medical errors and the aging of the physician workforce has come growing concern for cognitive impairment among physicians. This study sought to establish and validate an approach to detecting neuropsychological impairment among physicians. Method: The neuropsychological test performance of 30 physicians referred clinically for neuropsychological evaluations was compared to that of 39 normal community-practicing urologists. We derived 9 key variables from the cognitive and motor tests as dependent variables. Impairment among the clinically-referred doctors was operationalized as scoring ≤5th percentile of the community physicians on at least 3, 4, 5, or 6 of the 9 variables. Using this approach, all clinically-referred physicians were classified as either “impaired” or “ambiguous.” Results: A cutoff of ≥5 impaired test scores provided the best balance among competing models. Using this criterion, 14 of the clinically-referred doctors (46%) were impaired and 16 remained ambiguous. The impaired physicians: (1) were older, (2) were more often suspected of having a neurodegenerative disorder, and (3) were more likely to have discontinued practicing medicine. These findings serve as initial validation of our methodology. Conclusions: Using conservative criteria derived from normal community physicians, we could identify a substantial subgroup of clinically-referred physicians who are unambiguously neurocognitively impaired. Replication and refinement of our method with larger samples are recommended, as are the development of specialty-specific criteria for impairment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Clinical neuropsychologist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Clinical neuropsychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1666922\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1666922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

摘要目的:随着人们越来越关注减少医疗差错和医生队伍的老龄化,人们越来越关注医生的认知障碍。本研究试图建立并验证一种在医生中检测神经心理损伤的方法。方法:将30名临床转诊泌尿科医师的神经心理测试成绩与39名普通社区执业泌尿科医师的神经心理测试成绩进行比较。我们从认知和运动测试中导出了9个关键变量作为因变量。临床转诊医生的缺陷被操作为在9个变量中的至少3、4、5或6个方面得分≤社区医生的第5百分位数。使用这种方法,所有临床转诊的医生被分类为“受损”或“模糊”。结果:≥5个受损测试分数的临界值在竞争模型之间提供了最佳平衡。使用这一标准,14名临床转诊医生(46%)受损,16名仍然模棱两可。受损的医生:(1)年龄较大,(2)更常被怀疑患有神经退行性疾病,(3)更有可能停止行医。这些发现作为我们方法的初步验证。结论:使用来自普通社区医生的保守标准,我们可以识别出一组明显神经认知障碍的临床转诊医生。我们建议在更大的样本中复制和改进我们的方法,并制定专门的损伤标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Identifying neuropsychologically impaired physicians
Abstract Objective: With the increasing focus on reducing medical errors and the aging of the physician workforce has come growing concern for cognitive impairment among physicians. This study sought to establish and validate an approach to detecting neuropsychological impairment among physicians. Method: The neuropsychological test performance of 30 physicians referred clinically for neuropsychological evaluations was compared to that of 39 normal community-practicing urologists. We derived 9 key variables from the cognitive and motor tests as dependent variables. Impairment among the clinically-referred doctors was operationalized as scoring ≤5th percentile of the community physicians on at least 3, 4, 5, or 6 of the 9 variables. Using this approach, all clinically-referred physicians were classified as either “impaired” or “ambiguous.” Results: A cutoff of ≥5 impaired test scores provided the best balance among competing models. Using this criterion, 14 of the clinically-referred doctors (46%) were impaired and 16 remained ambiguous. The impaired physicians: (1) were older, (2) were more often suspected of having a neurodegenerative disorder, and (3) were more likely to have discontinued practicing medicine. These findings serve as initial validation of our methodology. Conclusions: Using conservative criteria derived from normal community physicians, we could identify a substantial subgroup of clinically-referred physicians who are unambiguously neurocognitively impaired. Replication and refinement of our method with larger samples are recommended, as are the development of specialty-specific criteria for impairment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Gender and Autism Program: A novel clinical service model for gender-diverse/transgender autistic youth and young adults. Neuropsychological functioning of pediatric patients with long COVID. A roadmap for psychometrist training: Moving from condemnation and confusion to cooperation and collaborationA Neuropsychologist’s Guide to Training Psychometrists: Promoting Competence in Psychological Testing. edited by Ghilain, C. S. New York: Routledge. (2021), ­160 pages. ISBN: 036756498X. $140.00 (hbk) Introductory editorial to the special issue: Assessment and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and related clinical decision making in neuropsychological practice Affirmative neuropsychological practice with transgender and gender diverse individuals and communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1