Neuropsychological assessment and diagnostic disclosure at a memory clinic: A qualitative study of the experiences of patients and their family members.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to gain insight into the experiences of patients and their family members regarding a neuropsychological assessment (NPA) and the diagnostic disclosure given by the medical specialist (psychiatrist, geriatrician, or their residents) at the memory clinic (MC). METHOD: Patients with and without a cognitive impairment and their family members were recruited from three Dutch MCs. Four focus groups with 14 patients and 13 family members were analyzed using both inductive and deductive content analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: uncertainty, early diagnostic paradox, and knowledge utilization. High levels of uncertainty were experienced throughout the NPA and diagnostic disclosure. The early diagnostic paradox refers to the coexistence of negative emotions, feeling distressed due to undergoing an NPA that made them aware of their cognitive complaints, and the experience of relief due to insight given by the outcome of the NPA and medical diagnosis. Knowledge utilization refers to a low retention of medical information. CONCLUSION: Clinicians can reduce uncertainty by using clear communication, limiting interruptions during an NPA, and paying attention to contextual factors. Low information retention could possibly be improved by involving a family member and using visual aids or written information during the diagnostic disclosure. Finally, participants also appreciated being provided with neuropsychological feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their cognitive profiles and with guidance on how to manage this diagnosis in their daily lives.

The Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Neuropsychological Assessment in Memory Clinic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychological testing has long been embedded in daily clinical practice at memory clinics but the added value of a complete neuropsychological assessment (NPA) to standard clinical evaluation is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the added diagnostic and prognostic value of NPA to clinical evaluation only in memory clinic patients. METHODS: In 221 memory clinic patients of a prospective cohort study, clinical experts diagnosed clinical syndrome (subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia) and etiology (Alzheimer's disease (AD) or no AD), and provided a prognosis of disease course (decline or no decline) before and after results of NPA were made available. The reference standard was a panel consensus based on all clinical information at baseline and up to 2 follow-up assessments. RESULTS: With NPA data available, clinicians changed their initial syndromal diagnosis in 22% of patients, and the etiological diagnosis as well as the prognosis in 15%. This led to an increase in correctly classified cases of 18% for syndromal diagnosis, 5% for etiological diagnosis, and 1% for prognosis. NPA data resulted in the largest improvement in patients initially classified as SCI (syndrome: 93.3% (n = 14) correctly reclassified, etiology: net reclassification improvement [NRI] = 0.61, prognosis: NRI = 0.13) or MCI (syndrome: 89.3% (n = 23) correctly reclassified, etiology: NRI = 0.17, prognosis: NRI = 0.14), while there was no improvement in patients with dementia (syndrome: 100% (n = 1) correctly reclassified, etiology: NRI = -0.05, prognosis: NRI = -0.06). Overall, inclusion of NPA in the diagnostic process increased confidence in all diagnoses with 6-7%. CONCLUSION: Administration of a complete NPA after standard clinical evaluation has added value for diagnosing cognitive syndrome and its underlying etiology in patients regarded as non-demented based on the first clinical impression.