Introduction
As the population ages, so does the workforce, including physicians. This demographic shift has heightened concerns about cognitive impairment among doctors. The focus of this study is to establish a normative database of healthy physicians to assess their cognitive competencies accurately. The goal is to compare physicians’ cognitive performance against their peers rather than the general population, ensuring a more relevant evaluation of their abilities.
Methods
This research employed a prospective cross-sectional observation design. Data were collected from 190 healthy physicians aged 35 to 65, with no work-related concerns, at an academic medical center’s neuropsychology clinic. The primary measure was performance on a neuropsychological test battery, with results transformed into z-scores for analysis.
Results
The study found that physicians generally outperformed the average non-physician 45-year-old, with cognitive performances skewed 0.5 to 1.0 standard deviations higher. Older age was associated with lower cognitive performance, yet even older physicians (ages 60–65) performed above the average 45-year-old non-physician.
Discussion
Physicians consistently outperformed the general public in cognitive tests, indicating preserved cognitive abilities even in older age. Current age-corrected methods from the general population may obscure cognitive impairments in medical professionals. The study suggests that cognitive assessments for physicians should be based on peer comparisons to ensure accurate evaluations.
Study Design and Participant Recruitment
The study recruited healthy, practicing physicians from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Heersink School of Medicine. Participants were divided into four subgroups based on medical specialty, and recruitment emails were sent in a randomized order. Privacy was a priority, with data de-identified and stored securely.
Neuropsychological Testing
Participants underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery, assessing various cognitive domains such as processing speed, memory, and executive function. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used as a cognitive screener, with immediate follow-up for any impaired results.
Data Analysis
The study used multiple linear regression to analyze the relationship between demographic and professional characteristics and cognitive performance. The results showed that older age correlated with slower motor speed, processing speed, and reduced memory, but not with verbal memory or visuospatial performance.
Implications for Physician Competency
The findings suggest that using physician-based norms for cognitive assessments is more accurate than general population norms. This approach reduces the risk of false negatives and ensures that cognitive impairments are not overlooked, which is crucial for patient safety.
Comparisons with Other Professions
The study draws parallels with other professions, such as airline pilots, where cognitive assessments are crucial for safety. The findings challenge the notion of age-mandated retirement for physicians, suggesting that cognitive assessments should be based on individual performance rather than age.
Gender Differences in Cognitive Performance
The study observed a modest advantage for female physicians in verbal memory, consistent with previous research. This finding highlights the importance of considering gender differences in cognitive assessments.
Limitations and Future Research
The study’s limitations include its single-center design and lack of longitudinal data. Future research should focus on developing a multisite normative database and exploring the relationship between cognitive performance and work-related errors.
Conclusion
This study provides a model for assessing physicians’ cognitive abilities, emphasizing the need for peer-based comparisons. The findings support the development of discipline-relevant thresholds for practice based on physician-derived data, ensuring accurate and fair evaluations of cognitive competency.
🔗 **Fuente:** https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1555950/full