A scoping review of remotely delivered cognitive assessment tools that could be used in comprehensive geriatric assessment

Poster ID
1972
Authors' names
J Whitney1; E Arjunaidi Jamaludin1; JC Bollen12; A Hall2; A Bethel 2; J Frost2; A Mahmoud2; N Morley2; S Freby2; V Goodwin2;
Author's provenances
1. King's College London/Hospital. 2. University of Exeter.

Abstract

Introduction

Community-based comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) reduces hospital admissions but the optimal way in which CGA can be delivered is not well understood. Digital and Remote Enhancements for the Assessment and Management of older people living with frailty (DREAM) is a programme of research seeking to develop an enhanced community CGA intervention.

We aimed to identify candidate cognitive assessment tools (CATs) that could be undertaken remotely and enhance CGA.

Methods

Searches were carried out on Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Papers published since 2008 were included if they analysed the validity, reliability or acceptability of CATs that could be undertaken remotely in a domestic setting and were tested on older people.  

Results

Of 4286 papers identified, 56 were included. Four types of CAT were identified: computer/tablet/smartphone applications (23tools/27papers), telephone (16tools/23papers), video (2tools/2papers) and specialist equipment (4tools/4 papers). 14 tools demonstrated excellent accuracy for identifying mild cognitive impairment or dementia (specified as AUC >0.80 or sensitivity/specificity>80%). 42 papers presented concurrent/convergent validity, 14 reliability and 16 acceptability data. Time taken to perform tests ranged between 2-30 mins. Of the 23 computer/tablet/smartphone applications, 7 tools are currently available to download.

Key conclusions

Remote CATs could be used in CGA.  Computer/tablet/smartphone applications and some specialist equipment could enhance assessment by quickly and accurately identifying cognitive impairment, in some cases with greater accuracy than traditional tests. Tools that use ‘games’ may be more appealing than conventional pen and paper tools. ​However, many of the computer/tablet/smartphone applications tested are not available for clinical use.

Presentation