Abstract
Remote cognitive diagnostic assessment offers numerous benefits, including increased access to care, but it may not always be appropriate, and guidelines are lacking. Our goal was to develop a clinical tool to determine a patient’s suitability for undergoing remote cognitive assessment. A multidisciplinary workgroup, composed of experts in remote assessment, was convened under the auspices of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging. Delphi, an anonymous group consensus method, was used to determine ‘red flags’ for remote cognitive diagnostic assessment. The process consisted of one round of flag generation, then two rounds of flag scoring based on effectiveness, reproducibility, and efficiency. In the first round, 11 respondents generated 67 potential flags. In subsequent rounds, 8 and 9 respondents, respectively, scored the flags, yielding 14 red flags that met the predetermined consensus criteria. This research led to the creation of a novel clinical decision-making infographic to support multidisciplinary clinicians in determining a patient’s readiness to undergo remote cognitive and behavioral diagnostic assessment.
Highlights
A timely and accessible diagnosis of dementia is crucial for optimal patient care.
Although clinicians are increasingly using telemedicine, guidelines on patient suitability for remote cognitive and behavioral assessment are lacking.
To address this knowledge gap, we developed a clinical decision-making tool to determine if a cognitive evaluation via telemedicine should be avoided.
To synthesize expert opinion, we used the Delphi method, an anonymous group consensus method that reduces eminence bias.
In collaboration with knowledge translation experts, an infographic describing the final 14 red flags for remote cognitive assessment was developed for clinicians to determine the appropriateness of patients for remote dementia diagnostic assessment.
Systematic Review PubMed and Google Scholar were used to survey the literature. Our review found that although there was a need for better access to dementia care, a framework to provide such care remotely is in development. We identified a gap in clinical guidelines on contraindications for remote cognitive assessment.
Interpretation This study created a clinical decision-making tool as an accessible infographic for clinicians to use when considering a remote cognitive diagnostic assessment. This guideline is based on expert consensus.
Future Directions In future studies, patient and caregiver perspectives should be incorporated into the decision-making process, and this tool should be validated in clinical contexts. Some of the identified flags for remote assessment are modifiable, and strategies to mitigate burden on patients and caregivers are warranted.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was made possible by funding from a National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant (DGECR-2022-00299), an NSERC Early Career Researcher Supplement (RGPIN-2022-04496), a Fonds de Recherche Santé Québec (FRSQ) Salary Award, the Canada Brain Research Fund (CBRF), an innovative arrangement between the Government of Canada (through Health Canada) and Brain Canada Foundation, the Alzheimer Society Research Program (ASRP) New Investigator Grant, the Brain Canada Future Leaders Award, the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, awarded through the Healthy Brains, Healthy Lives initiative at McGill University, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to MRG. This research was undertaken thanks also to funding from a Research Trainee Award from the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) to NHMF.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Research Ethics Officer of McGill University waived ethical approval for this work it was concluded that the project fell under Article 2.5 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement and therefore would not require ethics review.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos