Assessment of the unmediated relationship between neurological impairment and health-related quality of life following spinal cord injury.

Objective: To assess the unmediated association between neurological impairment and quality of life (QoL) among persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), in the context of both early post-acute and long-term rehabilitation settings.Design: An observational prospective cross-sectional study.Setting: Two neurological rehabilitation centers, specializing in spinal cord injury, within a university hospital.Methods: 156 adults with spinal cord injury in the early post-acute and chronic stages of rehabilitation.Outcome Measures: Participants were categorized into tetraplegia or paraplegia groups based on neurological level of injury, and into complete or incomplete groups based on American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) score. QoL was assessed by means of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LISAT-9), and Personal Well-Being Index (PWI).Results: WHOQOL-BREF and PWI predicted Level of Injury group classification and WHOQOL-BREF predicted Setting group classification. None of the questionnaires differentiated between the Type of Injury groups. At the early post-acute stage of rehabilitation, the QoL scores of participants with tetraplegia and paraplegia did not differ significantly, while significantly higher QoL scores were revealed in paraplegics in the long-term setting group.Conclusions: A direct, unmediated effect of severity of neurological impairment was revealed with the WHOQOL-BREF, which distinguished between the tetraplegia and paraplegia groups, but not between the complete and incomplete injuries. QoL was significantly higher in paraplegia than in tetraplegia following the early post-acute stage of rehabilitation.

How, when, and for whom: decisions regarding remote neuropsychological assessment during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Neuropsychological assessment provides crucial information about cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional functioning in medical, educational, legal, and social contexts. During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the Israeli Ministry of Health initially mandated that all psychological assessments be postponed. However, as referrals to time-sensitive, high-need, and high-stakes assessments began to accumulate, it became necessary to consider remote solutions. In the current paper, we describe the considerations that affected the transition to remote activity in a prominent Israeli provider of neuropsychological assessment and rehabilitation services, referring to technological and environmental conditions, cognitive requirements, and tasks, as well as to legal, regulatory, and funding issues. After discussing how assessments should be conducted to maximize feasibility and validity while minimizing risks to clients and clinicians, we propose a preliminary model for deciding whether specific referrals warrant remote administration. The model delineates key factors in decisions regarding remote assessment, emphasizing the distinct roles of the referring clinician and the neuropsychologist who conducts the assessment, and highlighting the need for collaboration between them. The abrupt need for remote assessments during the pandemic required a quick response with little preparation. The lessons learned from this process can be applied in the future, so that the need for remote services can be met with greater certainty and uniformity.

Neuropsychological assessment in the Israeli healthcare system: a practitioners' survey.

BACKGROUND: The current study examines self-reported professional practices and attitudes of Israeli neuropsychologists, in an attempt to understand how they contribute to funding of neuropsychological assessment (NPA) through the Israeli healthcare system. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-nine neuropsychologists (176 board-certified experts and 103 interns) participated in an online survey that targeted characteristics of NPA practice in Israel, attitudes toward NPA, and familiarity with healthcare referral procedures. RESULTS: Overall, 68% of respondents conducted NPA, with a smaller proportion of experts (56%) doing so than interns (88%). The most common purpose of NPA was to provide treatment recommendations, and respondents listed indications for NPA that matched indications for neuropsychological rehabilitation. Almost two thirds of respondents reported that none of the NPAs that they performed received healthcare funding. While all practitioners believed that the healthcare system should fund NPA, the majority demonstrated lack of familiarity with referral procedures. CONCLUSIONS: To increase referral rates and create effective neuropsychological services within the Israeli healthcare system, neuropsychologists should work more closely with physicians in integrated care teams. In addition, they should engage in greater advocacy activities that will emphasize the need for publicly funded NPA.

Familiarity with Neuropsychological Assessment among Israeli Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: The current study examines whether Israeli physicians are familiar with neuropsychological assessment (NPA) in general and with referral to NPA in particular. METHOD: In total, 274 physicians in relevant fields participated in an online survey that targeted levels of familiarity with NPA, beliefs about assessment needs, and actual referral practices. RESULTS: Israeli physicians see many patients with neuropsychological difficulties, but assess fewer patients for these difficulties by themselves. Approximately 80% of participants reported that they had heard of NPA before, but only 25% knew how to refer patients to NPA. Familiarity was greater among neurologists and neurosurgeons than among family doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians had only general knowledge about NPA, with little practical understanding of how to refer patients to such a service. To increase referral rates and create consistent demand for effective neuropsychological services, neuropsychologists should engage in greater advocacy activity that will lead to clarification of referral procedures.