Inter Organizational Practice Committee

Health Care Reform and Neuropsychology Toolkit

The IOPC is a super committee of AACN, NAN, D40, and ABN, tasked with coordinating advocacy efforts and improving the practice climate for Neuropsychology. The Healthcare Reform Toolkit is an evolving interactive website designed to educate neuropsychologists about healthcare reform and share effective practice models

UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute drop down EMR development draft.

Dr. Ingrid Leckliter and her group at U.C. Davis have generously shared their working development draft of a drop down EMR template.  They continue to work with their IT department to develop the final product.  

Here are a list of questions circulated through their department in the course of developing the template:

1. What is[are] the effective component[s] of a neuropsychological evaluation? For example, is it a) the parents’ chance to observe their child in an independent context, b) the opportunity to dialogue with the professional who has spent hours systematically observing their child across a variety of neurocognitive demands, c) oral review of the actual test scores and the scores’ interpretations, d) oral review of the recommendations, e) a written report that summarizes the scores, interpretations and recommendations, f) a written report that may open barriers (perceived or otherwise) to entitlement services such as SpEd or Regional Center, g) the parent’s dialogue with the referring provider about the written report’s results and recommendations?

2. Are reports effective clinical tools? That is, do they actually bring about change such as in parent’s knowledge of their child’s needs and their response to the child, the child’s access to services?

3. Are there more cost effective means to bring about these targeted changes (e.g., more individual follow-up sessions rather than an 11+ page report; a brief bulleted report; a report that answers the referral questions in lay terms, a telephone conversation with the referring provider)?

4. If reports are effective, who is the target audience? a) the referring provider or agency, b) the parent, c) the school district, d) other health care professionals such as S/L or M/BH therapists?

5. If several audiences require a copy of the report, how do we obtain funding for the time required to prepare reports for each different reader, or can we find a way to make one report sufficient for all readers?

6. When children are examined through a quasi-forensic situation, such as eligibility for Regional Center or to assist the district in determining eligibility for SpEd services [which in my opinion is quasi-forensic because the report is likely to be specifically used in due-process and subsequent legal proceedings] what is the extent of reporting required?

7. Should quasi-forensic reports set the standard for report quality, even in health-care settings? If not, what/who does set the standard for quality in written reports within the health-care settings? For example, how comparable should reports be across departments (PM&R versus DB Peds for example) or across disciplines (DB Pediatricians vs clinical psychologists)?