Peii Chen

Functional Assessment of Spatial Neglect: A Review of the Catherine Bergego Scale and an Introduction of the Kessler Foundation Neglect Assessment Process

Abstract Spatial neglect is a debilitating poststroke neurocognitive disorder associated with prolonged hospitalization and poor rehabilitation outcomes. The literature suggests a high prevalence of this disorder, but clinicians have difficulty reliably identifying affected survivors. This discrepancy may result from suboptimal use of validated neglect assessment procedures. In this article, we suggest use of a validated assessment tool that is sensitive to identification of neglect and its functional consequences – the Catherine Bergego Scale (CBS). We provide detailed item-by-item instructions for observation and scoring – the Kessler Foundation Neglect Assessment Process (KF-NAP). Rehabilitation researchers may be able to use the CBS via the KF-NAP to measure ecological outcomes and specific, separable perceptual-attentional and motor-exploratory spatial behaviors.

Psychometric Evaluation of Neglect Assessment Reveals Motor-Exploratory Predictor of Functional Disability in Acute-Stage Spatial Neglect

OBJECTIVE To determine the psychometric properties of 2 neglect measures, the Behavioral Inattention Test (BIT)-conventional and the Catherine Bergego Scale (CBS), in acute spatial neglect. Spatial neglect is a failure or slowness to respond, orient, or initiate action toward contralesional stimuli, associated with functional disability that impedes stroke recovery. Early identification of specific neglect deficits may identify patients likely to experience chronic disability. However, psychometric evaluation of assessments has focused on subacute/chronic populations. DESIGN Correlational/psychometric study. SETTING Inpatient rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS Screening identified 51 consecutive patients with a right-hemisphere stroke with left neglect (BIT score <129 or CBS score >11) tested an average of 22.3 days poststroke. INTERVENTIONS Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES We obtained BIT, CBS, and Barthel Index assessments for each participant and clinical and laboratory measures of perceptual-attentional and motor-intentional deficits. RESULTS The BIT showed good reliability and loaded onto a single factor. Consistent with our theoretical prediction, principal components analysis of the CBS identified 2 underlying factors: Where perceptual-attentional items (CBS-PA) and embodied, motor-exploratory items (CBS-ME). The CBS-ME uniquely predicted deficits in activities of daily living (ADLs) assessed by using the Barthel Index, but did not predict clinical and laboratory assessments of motor-intentional bias. More severe neglect on the CBS-PA correlated with greater Where perceptual-attentional bias on clinical and laboratory tests, but did not uniquely predict deficits in ADLs. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate that assessments of spatial neglect may be used to detect specific motor-exploratory deficits in spatial neglect. Obtaining CBS-ME scores routinely might improve the detection of acute-stage patients with spatial action deficits requiring increased assistance that may persist to the chronic stage.

Impact of Spatial Neglect on Stroke Rehabilitation: Evidence From the Setting of an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility

OBJECTIVE To examine the impact of spatial neglect on rehabilitation outcome, risk of falls, and discharge disposition in stroke survivors. DESIGN Inception cohort. SETTING Inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF). PARTICIPANTS Individuals with unilateral brain damage after their first stroke (N=108) were assessed at IRF admission and discharge. At admission, 74 of them (68.5%) demonstrated symptoms of spatial neglect as measured using the Kessler Foundation Neglect Assessment Process (KF-NAP). INTERVENTIONS Usual and standard IRF care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The FIM, Conley Scale, number of falls, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition. RESULTS The greater the severity of spatial neglect (higher KF-NAP scores) at IRF admission and the lower the FIM scores at admission as well as at discharge. Higher KF-NAP scores also correlated with greater LOS and lower FIM improvement rate. The presence of spatial neglect (KF-NAP score>0), but not Conley Scale scores, predicted falls such that participants with spatial neglect fell 6.5 times more often than those without symptoms. More severe neglect, indicated by KF-NAP scores at IRF admission, reduced the likelihood of returning home at discharge. A model that took spatial neglect and other demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors into account predicted home discharge. Rapid FIM improvement during IRF stay and lower annual income level were significant predictors of home discharge. CONCLUSIONS Spatial neglect after a stroke is a prevalent problem and may negatively affect rehabilitation outcome, risk of falls, and LOS.

Effects of prism adaptation on motor-intentional spatial bias in neglect.

Prism adaptation may alleviate some symptoms of spatial neglect. However, the mechanism through which this technique works is still unclear. This study investigated whether prism adaptation differentially affects dysfunction in perceptual-attentional ‘where’ bias versus motor-intentional ‘aiming’ bias. Five neglect patients performed a line bisection task in which lines were viewed under both normal and right–left reversed viewing conditions, allowing for the fractionation of ‘where’ and ‘aiming’ spatial bias components. After two consecutive days of prism adaptation, participants demonstrated a significant improvement in ‘aiming’ spatial bias, with no effect on ‘where’ spatial bias. These findings suggest that prism adaptation may primarily affect motor-intentional ‘aiming’ bias in poststroke spatial neglect patients.

Presence of Motor-Intentional Aiming Deficit Predicts Functional Improvement of Spatial Neglect With Prism Adaptation.

Background. Spatial neglect is a debilitating disorder for which there is no agreed on course of rehabilitation. The lack of consensus on treatment may result from systematic differences in the syndromes characteristics, with spatial cognitive deficits potentially affecting perceptual-attentional “Where” or motor-intentional “Aiming” spatial processing. Heterogeneity of response to treatment might be explained by different treatment impacts on these dissociated deficits: prism adaptation, for example, might reduce Aiming deficits without affecting Where spatial deficits. Objective. Here, we tested the hypothesis that classifying patients by their profile of Where-versus-Aiming spatial deficit would predict response to prism adaptation and specifically that patients with Aiming bias would have better recovery than those with isolated Where bias. Methods. We classified the spatial errors of 24 subacute right stroke survivors with left spatial neglect as (1) isolated Where bias, (2) isolated Aiming bias, or (3) both. Participants then completed 2 weeks of prism adaptation treatment. They also completed the Behavioral Inattention Test and Catherine Bergego Scale (CBS) tests of neglect recovery weekly for 6 weeks. Results. As hypothesized, participants with only Aiming deficits improved on the CBS, whereas those with only Where deficits did not improve. Participants with both deficits demonstrated intermediate improvement. Conclusion. These results support behavioral classification of spatial neglect patients as a potential valuable tool for assigning targeted, effective early rehabilitation.

Integrity of medial temporal structures may predict better improvement of spatial neglect with prism adaptation treatment

Prism adaptation treatment (PAT) is a promising rehabilitative method for functional recovery in persons with spatial neglect. Previous research suggests that PAT improves motor-intentional “aiming” deficits that frequently occur with frontal lesions. To test whether presence of frontal lesions predicted better improvement of spatial neglect after PAT, the current study evaluated neglect-specific improvement in functional activities (assessment with the Catherine Bergego Scale) over time in 21 right-brain-damaged stroke survivors with left-sided spatial neglect. The results demonstrated that neglect patients’ functional activities improved after two weeks of PAT and continued improving for four weeks. Such functional improvement did not occur equally in all of the participants: Neglect patients with lesions involving the frontal cortex (n = 13) experienced significantly better functional improvement than did those without frontal lesions (n = 8). More importantly, voxel-based lesion-behavior mapping (VLBM) revealed that in comparison to the group of patients without frontal lesions, the frontal-lesioned neglect patients had intact regions in the medial temporal areas, the superior temporal areas, and the inferior longitudinal fasciculus. The medial cortical and subcortical areas in the temporal lobe were especially distinguished in the “frontal lesion” group. The findings suggest that the integrity of medial temporal structures may play an important role in supporting functional improvement after PAT.

Interdisciplinary communication in inpatient rehabilitation facility: evidence of under-documentation of spatial neglect after stroke

Purpose: Spatial neglect commonly occurs after stroke and predicts poor rehabilitation outcomes. However, this disorder is under-recognized in clinical practices, which may result from the failure to document its presence. This study aimed to identify the predictors for documentation of spatial neglect in inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Method: We performed a comprehensive chart review to investigate whether the presence of spatial neglect was documented in 74 neglect patients’ clinical notes recorded by physicians, nurses, or occupational therapists (OTs), or in team conference notes. Independent variables included neglect severity, length of stay, Functional Independence Measure at admission and discharge. Results: Of the 74 neglect patients, 75.7% were documented by OTs, 63.5% by physicians, and 17.6% by nurses. Although 93.2% of neglect patients were recognized by at least one clinician group, only 31.1% were discussed in multidisciplinary team conferences. Neglect patients who were documented by physicians were more likely to be documented in team conferences. While no factors predicted whether a neglect patient would be documented by nurses or OTs, we found significant predictors for neglect documentation in physician and team conference notes. The odds of being documented by physicians were increasingly greater with poorer efficiency of cognitive rehabilitation (odds ratio = 0.70). The odds of being discussed in team conferences were increasingly greater with more severe neglect (odds ratio = 0.98), and with longer stay in hospitalization (odds ratio = 1.06). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary care may not involve as much interdisciplinary communication as needed to document important disease states. Stroke rehabilitation professionals should be able to recognize spatial neglect independently and document it consistently. Implications for Rehabilitation Occupational therapists detected and documented more neglect cases than physicians or nurses. Nurses’ documentation rate of spatial neglect was much lower than physicians or occupational therapists. Spatial neglect was more likely to be documented by physicians if the patients had poor efficiency in cognitive outcome improvement. Stroke patients with more severe neglect or with longer stay were more likely to be documented in team conference notes. No neglect patient was coded with the ICD-9-CM code (781.8), suggesting that using such code for institutional or nation-wide prevalence research on spatial neglect is likely to be unfruitful.

Spatial Neglect Hinders Success of Inpatient Rehabilitation in Individuals With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Study.

Background. Current knowledge about spatial neglect and its impact on rehabilitation mostly originates from stroke studies. Objective. To examine the impact of spatial neglect on rehabilitation outcome in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods. The retrospective study included 156 consecutive patients with TBI (73 women; median age = 69.5 years; interquartile range = 50-81 years) at an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF). We examined whether the presence of spatial neglect affected the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores, length of stay, or discharge disposition. Based on the available medical records, we also explored whether spatial neglect was associated with tactile sensation or muscle strength asymmetry in the extremities and whether specific brain injuries or lesions predicted spatial neglect. Results. In all, 30.1% (47 of 156) of the sample had spatial neglect. Sex, age, severity of TBI, or time postinjury did not differ between patients with and without spatial neglect. In comparison to patients without spatial neglect, patients with the disorder stayed in IRF 5 days longer, had lower FIM scores at discharge, improved slower in both Cognitive and Motor FIM scores, and might have less likelihood of return home. In addition, left-sided neglect was associated with asymmetric strength in the lower extremities, specifically left weaker than the right. Finally, brain injury–induced mass effect predicted left-sided neglect. Conclusions. Spatial neglect is common following TBI, impedes rehabilitation progress in both motor and cognitive domains, and prolongs length of stay. Future research is needed for linking specific traumatic injuries and lesioned networks to spatial neglect and related impairment.

Spouses of Stroke Survivors May Be at Risk for Poor Cognitive Functioning: A Cross-sectional Population-Based Study

Abstract Background: Stroke often results in chronic disability and the need for long-term assistance, which is provided in large part by spouses. Stroke caregivers experience poorer health and well-being compared with non-caregivers, but less is known about the specific toll that caregiving may exact on cognitive functioning. Objective: To investigate whether persons caring for a spouse who experienced a recent stroke may be at risk for poor cognitive functioning compared with non-caregivers. Methods: Existing data from the United States’ Health and Retirement Study (HRS) were used to identify 146 caregivers from among couples in which 1 individual reported surviving a recent stroke and experiencing functional limitations. This cross-sectional population-based analysis compared the stroke caregivers with 3,416 non-caregivers in time orientation, working memory, semantic memory, learning, and episodic memory. Results: Overall, the caregiver group was considerably more disadvantaged than the non-caregiver group in terms of background characteristics, socioeconomic status, health, and well-being. Results of weighted Poisson regression models indicated that stroke caregivers were at risk for poorer performance than non-caregivers in working memory, semantic memory, learning, and episodic memory. The gap between stroke caregivers and non-caregivers in episodic memory remained after adjusting for systematic differences between the 2 groups across an array of risk factors. Conclusions: Spousal caregivers of stroke survivors may be at risk for poor cognitive functioning. More work is needed to identify the processes that may contribute to the diminished cognitive capacity among these adults so that interventions may be developed to reduce caregiver burden and promote cognitive health.

Informal caregivers’ burden and stress in caring for stroke survivors with spatial neglect: an exploratory mixed-method study

Background: Spatial neglect prolongs stroke survivors’ recovery to independence. However, little is known about the impact of spatial neglect on caregivers of stroke survivors. Objective: To explore the factors associated with burden and stress among informal caregivers of stroke survivors with spatial neglect. Methods: Following the previous study of 108 stroke survivors, we reached 24 stroke survivors’ caregivers, and 20 caregivers (age: M±SD=56.9±12.7 years; 12 females) completed the study. 10 survivors had symptoms of spatial neglect, and 10 did not (i.e., SN+ or SN-, respectively) at the time when discharged from inpatient rehabilitation, which was 9.3±6.2 months before the present study. Via a semi-structured telephone interview, we assessed caregivers’ burden and stress qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: No difference was observed across caregiver groups in cognitive function, depressive mood, or community mobility. In comparison, caregivers of the SN+ group allocated more time to care, controlling for survivors’ disability (adjusted effective size d = 1.80). Their self-perceived burden and stress were more severe than the other group (adjusted d = .99). Qualitative analysis indicated caregivers of the SN+ group were more likely to describe economic stressors and undesirable changes in career and vacation planning. While 80% of participants preferred their care recipients to receive additional motor or mobility therapy, caregivers of the SN+ group were more likely to suggest additional therapy for cognitive impairment. Conclusions: This exploratory study suggests that spatial neglect may heighten caregivers’ burden and stress levels. Future studies with a large sample size are required.