header-logo header-logo

15 March 2024 / Dr Tanya Garrett
Issue: 8063 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Career focus
printer mail-detail

Cognitive assessments: dangerously remote?

163732
Psychologist Dr Tanya Garrett explains the risks of exclusively remote cognitive functioning & capacity assessments
  • Warns of the risks of remotely performed cognitive functioning, capacity and other psychological assessments.
  • Advises that solicitors should not commission these on a remote basis, and should alert the court in the event of any assessment being carried out remotely.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, I continued to offer all assessments in person, using personal protective equipment and social distancing. I felt this was important because so much of a psychologist’s assessment is based on rapport-building to ensure accurate information is provided and to assist clients when sharing difficult and personal information, as well as observing non-verbal communication, all of which are difficult to do remotely. However, I know many psychologists started offering remote assessments, including cognitive functioning/capacity assessments, and that this is still going on. I would suggest this was never necessary and that doing it now is not only unnecessary, but likely inappropriate unless under certain circumstances, as well as potentially misleading.

I first became concerned when I saw cognitive

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll