195 | Clinical Insights #3: Report Writing (Part 1)

I have Jacques Donders' voice in my head from our podcast episode number twenty-five with him saying, "Just answer the referral question rather than trying to address every possible question that we possibly could." I think that is something neuropsychology traditionally has not done a great job at, just being targeted.

And I agree with him that we should stick as close to the referral question as possible.

However, if something obvious comes up, I think then that's important to address.

Also, I'm happy to answer any and all questions patients and families have, but that's separate than what goes into the report.

I think the report can be targeted to what the referring provider or other stakeholders are interested in most.

One thing I do that's different from other neuropsychologists is that I strongly prefer putting the summary and impressions and the diagnosis and recommendations sections first in my reports and then having an extended report section with all of the background info.

This way, even if the full report is lengthy and no one reads the thing [chuckles], at least the most important sections will be most likely to be read.

You know, I, I don't like personally having to search for the punchline in physician notes, so I view it as a courtesy to the referring provider that they don't have to search for my impressions.

[lips smack] Now, you could argue that the most important, quote-unquote, sections could be the entire report.

That, that could be all that we write.

Why, why write the extended report if, if what we put on t- at the top is the most important? But I do think that the relatively detailed background info is useful, and I like room to elaborate on cognitive symptoms and other material that I feel relevant.

So I do like having that extended report section, even if it does extend the report.

But right up front are the impressions.

[lips smack] I think we-- I'm just kinda, um, rolling with some thoughts here.

I think we can keep background sections brief and templated unless there's a reason to elaborate on it.

So for example, if the person has no known family history of psychiatric or neurocognitive issues, I think it's okay just to write none for that section.

I don't think we have to write full, complete sentences with perfect grammar.

It can be bulleted and short, I think.

[lips smack] Also, I don't have detailed explanations of test results, like paragraph form explaining the tests that I've seen some people's reports.

That's kind of old school.

Uh, I think that's less common nowadays for a couple reasons, both for test security, 'cause you don't wanna explain too much about the mechanics of the tests, and because I don't think it's relevant for people who are reading it.

You know, if another neuropsychologist is reading your report in the future, they should know just by a summary table what you did, so you don't have to explain the tests to them.

Um, I could talk a little more about that later for other questions, but what, what do you think, Ryan? I kind of was just rambling with my different, different thoughts on this topic.

topic.As usual, rambling.

Um, I'll try to make some sense out of all that.