E Brooks1,2, M H Gendel2, A L Parry2, S Humphreys2, S R Early2. 1. Department of Community & Behavioral Health, School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA, elizabeth.brooks@ucdenver.edu. 2. Colorado Physician Health Program, Denver, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians are not immune to cognitive impairment. Because of the risks created by practising doctors with these issues, some have suggested developing objective, population-specific measures of evaluation and screening guidelines to assess dysfunction. However, there is very little published information from which to construct such resources. AIMS: To highlight the presentation characteristics and provide evaluation recommendations specific to the needs of physicians with actual or presumed cognitive impairment. METHODS: A retrospective database and chart review of cognitively impaired doctors who presented to a physician health programme (PHP). Complex cases were highlighted using simple descriptives and clinical vignettes. RESULTS: A total of 124 cases were included. Clients presented with a variety of issues other than cognitive concerns. We identified four principal domains of impairment: (i) diseases of (or in) the brain (48%); (ii) mood/ anxiety disorders or treatment side effects (28%); (iii) substance use (9%) and (iv) traumatic brain injury (7%). Age was not a good predictor of impairment and brief screening using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment demonstrated a ceiling effect with this cohort. Although many clients underwent some type of professional or personal transition, impairment did not necessarily indicate worse functioning after care. CONCLUSIONS: Physician cognitive evaluations should consider a variety of secondary sources of information, particularly vocational performance reports. It may take time before cognitive impairment can be diagnosed or ruled-out in this population. Prior assumptions, especially for non-cognitive referrals, can lead to inaccurate diagnosis and referrals. PHPs must manage cognitive cases carefully, not only in their clinical complexity but also in their psychosocial aspects.
BACKGROUND: Physicians are not immune to cognitive impairment. Because of the risks created by practising doctors with these issues, some have suggested developing objective, population-specific measures of evaluation and screening guidelines to assess dysfunction. However, there is very little published information from which to construct such resources. AIMS: To highlight the presentation characteristics and provide evaluation recommendations specific to the needs of physicians with actual or presumed cognitive impairment. METHODS: A retrospective database and chart review of cognitively impaired doctors who presented to a physician health programme (PHP). Complex cases were highlighted using simple descriptives and clinical vignettes. RESULTS: A total of 124 cases were included. Clients presented with a variety of issues other than cognitive concerns. We identified four principal domains of impairment: (i) diseases of (or in) the brain (48%); (ii) mood/ anxiety disorders or treatment side effects (28%); (iii) substance use (9%) and (iv) traumatic brain injury (7%). Age was not a good predictor of impairment and brief screening using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment demonstrated a ceiling effect with this cohort. Although many clients underwent some type of professional or personal transition, impairment did not necessarily indicate worse functioning after care. CONCLUSIONS: Physician cognitive evaluations should consider a variety of secondary sources of information, particularly vocational performance reports. It may take time before cognitive impairment can be diagnosed or ruled-out in this population. Prior assumptions, especially for non-cognitive referrals, can lead to inaccurate diagnosis and referrals. PHPs must manage cognitive cases carefully, not only in their clinical complexity but also in their psychosocial aspects.