The development and implementation of teleneuropsychology in an academic lifespan neuropsychology center: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Issue 8 (14th September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pulsifer, Margaret B.; Grieco, Julie A.; Burstein, Sarah M.; Parsons, Michael W.; Gardner, Melissa M.; Sherman, Janet C.
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. Volume 43:Issue 8(2021)
• Page Start: 774
• Page End: 785
• Publication Date: 2021-09-14
• Subjects: Telehealth -- teleneuropsychology -- lifespan -- COVID-19 -- adults -- pediatrics; Neuropsychology -- Periodicals; Psychophysiology -- Periodicals; Neurosciences -- Periodicals; Psychophysiology -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; 616.89
• DOI: 10.1080/13803395.2021.1963683
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1380-3395

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Teleneuropsychology (TNP) became a critical means for providing care during the COVID-19 pandemic and may continue as an option for delivery of neuropsychological services. To understand how patient characteristics impact clinician decisions and service models, this study examines practice patterns within a lifespan outpatient neuropsychology center before, during and post-pandemic. Methods: Patient volume, demographics, and characteristics were compared across four, 3-month time intervals in 2019–2020. Two baseline intervals when the center was physically open (PO) were compared to one interval when the center was physically closed (PC) (all evaluations were conducted via direct-to-home TNP) and a fourth interval when the center was physically reopened (RO) and evaluations were conducted in one of the three modalities: in-person, virtual only or hybrid (both virtual/in-person). Results: A total of 1, 459 total neuropsychological evaluations were conducted with a 64.6% reduction during PC. At RO, the number of evaluations returned to pre-COVID baseline during which in-person (72.4%) evaluations were conducted at a higher rate than hybrid (7.1%) or virtual only (20.4%). Across the lifespan, mean number of appointments to complete evaluations was significantly greater during PC ( p < .001) than at other time intervals, and during RO, hybrid evaluations required significantly more appointments ( p < .001) than in-person and virtual. The majority of evaluations were conducted with adult patients (71.4%). For adult patients, neurodegenerative/memory disorders received TNP evaluations at a higher rate during PC and RO. Pediatric patients were significantly older during PC ( p < .001); neurodevelopmental referrals received more hybrid and virtual evaluations. Conclusions: Results indicate that patient characteristics, especially age and referral categories, impact the feasibility of TNP. Data from the RO period suggest that in-person evaluations not surprisingly remain the mainstay; however, for adult patients, and especially older adults with neurodegenerative/memory disorders, TNP may provide an important option for delivery of neuropsychological evaluations.