Rehabilitation professionals still do not communicate effectively about cognition.

Area of Science:

• Neuroscience
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Healthcare Communication

Background:

• Effective communication is crucial in rehabilitation settings.
• Standardized terminology for cognitive impairment facilitates accurate patient assessment and care planning.
• Previous studies suggest variability in the interpretation of cognitive deficit descriptors.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess current usage of descriptive labels for cognitive impairment levels and memory types among rehabilitation professionals.
• To determine if interdisciplinary communication regarding cognitive status has improved.

Main Methods:

• A survey was administered to 130 rehabilitation professionals across 8 facilities in 5 states.
• Responses regarding the severity and types of memory impairment were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.
• Statistical analysis focused on identifying differences in terminology interpretation based on professional background.

Main Results:

• Significant differences were found in how professions rated cognitive deficit levels (mild, moderate, severe).
• Psychologists/neuropsychologists and speech-language pathologists showed significant discrepancies in defining mild, moderate, and severe impairment.
• A general lack of agreement on the meaning of descriptive memory terms was observed among respondents.

Conclusions:

• A persistent lack of consensus exists in understanding common cognitive terminology among rehabilitation professionals.
• Miscommunication regarding cognitive impairment descriptors and memory types is prevalent.
• Educational interventions are recommended to enhance awareness of communication discrepancies and improve interprofessional understanding.