The stakeholders’ project in neuropsychological report writing: a survey of neuropsychologists’ and referral sources’ views of neuropsychological reports

Abstract

Objective: Though some neuropsychological groups have proposed criteria and suggestions for clinical report writing there has never been professional consensus or accepted published guidelines on how to write reports. Given the paucity of guidelines and the evolving practice climate, we sought to survey neuropsychologists and referral source stakeholders to understand current report writing practices. Method: The data were collected in two SurveyMonkey surveys via professional list servs, email, and LinkedIn clinical interest groups. Results: Results of the survey indicate many neuropsychologists spend multiple hours writing reports that they believe will not be read completely by stakeholders. A striking 73% of referral sources reported slow turnaround time of neuropsychological reports negatively affected their patient care. Referral sources reported they value the diagnosis/impression and recommendations sections the most; in contrast, they did not find the history, behavioral observations, emotional functioning, or descriptions of cognitive domains sections as useful. Conclusions: The survey findings highlight the disjuncture between what neuropsychologists typically do in their practice of report writing versus what they believe is useful for patients and referral sources. The survey also highlights differences between writing practices of neuropsychologists and what referral sources identify as the most valuable aspects of reports to assist them in caring for their patients.