Alice M Saperstein1, Alice Medalia1,2, Igor Malinovsky2, Iruma Bello2, Lisa B Dixon1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA. 2. Behavioral Health Services and Policy Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
AIM: Methods to identify and harness individual cognitive strengths while addressing relative weaknesses have the potential to complement recovery services for first-episode psychosis but systematic implementation is needed. We developed a cognitive health toolkit, trained teams from OnTrackNY, a network of coordinated specialty care (CSC) programs and examined toolkit feasibility and clinical utility during the first year of roll-out. METHODS: The toolkit includes a clinician manual, assessment and decision-making tools, and a menu of cognitive health service options. Assessment uses the WRAT5-Reading subtest and a new Self-Assessment of Cognitive Functioning which, together, determine participant- and clinician-perceived cognitive health need. Program-level data were analysed for rates of assessment, identification of cognitive health needs and cognitive health service provision. RESULTS: Data from 18 OnTrackNY teams included 933 participants, including 310 new admissions. Across teams, 43.9% of newly admitted participants received a WRAT5-Reading and 41.3% received a self-assessment. Of all assessments completed in the study period, 50.7% were at or within 3-months of admission and 69.1% were within the first year of program participation. Cognitive health need was identified by self-report (57.6%) and clinician-report (69.9%) and led to provision of specific services, including psychoeducation, compensatory skills training and in some cases restorative cognitive training. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary feasibility data are encouraging but barriers to assessment need to be identified and addressed. Rates of identified cognitive health need warrant further study of the implementation process and outcomes so that cognitive health assessment and treatment practices may ultimately be disseminated to CSC programs more broadly.
AIM: Methods to identify and harness individual cognitive strengths while addressing relative weaknesses have the potential to complement recovery services for first-episode psychosis but systematic implementation is needed. We developed a cognitive health toolkit, trained teams from OnTrackNY, a network of coordinated specialty care (CSC) programs and examined toolkit feasibility and clinical utility during the first year of roll-out. METHODS: The toolkit includes a clinician manual, assessment and decision-making tools, and a menu of cognitive health service options. Assessment uses the WRAT5-Reading subtest and a new Self-Assessment of Cognitive Functioning which, together, determine participant- and clinician-perceived cognitive health need. Program-level data were analysed for rates of assessment, identification of cognitive health needs and cognitive health service provision. RESULTS: Data from 18 OnTrackNY teams included 933 participants, including 310 new admissions. Across teams, 43.9% of newly admitted participants received a WRAT5-Reading and 41.3% received a self-assessment. Of all assessments completed in the study period, 50.7% were at or within 3-months of admission and 69.1% were within the first year of program participation. Cognitive health need was identified by self-report (57.6%) and clinician-report (69.9%) and led to provision of specific services, including psychoeducation, compensatory skills training and in some cases restorative cognitive training. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary feasibility data are encouraging but barriers to assessment need to be identified and addressed. Rates of identified cognitive health need warrant further study of the implementation process and outcomes so that cognitive health assessment and treatment practices may ultimately be disseminated to CSC programs more broadly.
Authors: Andrea Bradford; Mark E Kunik; Paul Schulz; Susan P Williams; Hardeep Singh Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Olina G Vidarsdottir; David L Roberts; Elizabeth W Twamley; Berglind Gudmundsdottir; Engilbert Sigurdsson; Brynja B Magnusdottir Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2019-02-03 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Kelly Allott; Peter Steele; Frances Boyer; Ashleigh de Winter; Shayden Bryce; Mario Alvarez-Jimenez; Lisa Phillips Journal: Clin Psychol Rev Date: 2020-06-01
Authors: Keith H Nuechterlein; Kenneth L Subotnik; Michael F Green; Joseph Ventura; Robert F Asarnow; Michael J Gitlin; Cindy M Yee; Denise Gretchen-Doorly; Jim Mintz Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Sean A Kidd; Yarissa Herman; Gursharan Virdee; Christopher R Bowie; Dawn Velligan; Christina Plagiannakos; Aristotle Voineskos Journal: Schizophr Res Cogn Date: 2019-07-24