Cognitive Assessment Tool Kit

COGNITIVE
ASSESSMENT TOOLKIT
A guide to detect cognitive impairment quickly and efficiently
during the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit

800.272.3900 | alz.org
Overview ...............................................................................................................................................................3
Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Algorithm for Assessment of Cognition ..........................................................4
General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) .....................................................................................5
Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) .......................................................................................................................7
Mini-CogTM
.............................................................................................................................................................9
Short Form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (Short IQCODE) ....................11
Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia (AD8) ...................................................14
Alzheimer’s Association Recommendations for Operationalizing the Detection of Cognitive
Impairment During the Medical Annual Wellness Visit in a Primary Care Setting ..........................................17
TABLE OF CONTENTS

800.272.3900 | alz.org
The Alzheimer’s Association – dedicated to fueling the advancement of early detection and diagnosis of
dementia – has developed an easy-to-implement process to assess cognition during the Medicare Annual
Wellness Visit. Developed by a group of clinical dementia experts, the recommended process outlined on
page 4 allows you to efficiently identify patients with probable cognitive impairment while giving you the
flexibility to choose a cognitive assessment tool that works best for you and your patients.
This Cognitive Assessment Toolkit contains:
• The Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Algorithm for Assessment of Cognition, incorporating patient
history, clinician observations, and concerns expressed by the patient, family or caregiver
• Three validated patient assessment tools: the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG),
the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) and the Mini-CogTM
. All tools:
›Can be administered in 5 minutes or less
›Are equal to or superior to the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) for detecting dementia
›Are easily administered by medical staff members who are not physicians
›Are relatively free from educational, language and/or cultural bias
• Three validated informant assessment of patient tools: the Short Form of the Informant Questionnaire
on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (Short IQCODE), the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate
Aging and Dementia (AD8) and the GPCOG
• The “Alzheimer’s Association Recommendations for Operationalizing the Detection of Cognitive
Impairment During the Medical Annual Wellness Visit in a Primary Care Setting,”as published in the
journal Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
For more information on the detection, diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as direct
access to patient and caregiver resources, please visit our Health Care Professionals and Alzheimer’s center
at alz.org/hcps.
OVERVIEW

* No one tool is recognized as the best brief assessment to determine if a full dementia evaluation is
needed. Some providers repeat patient assessment with an alternate tool (e.g., SLUMS, or MoCA)
to confirm initial findings before referral or initiation of full dementia evaluation.
Cordell CB, Borson S, Boustani M, Chodosh J, Reuben D, Verghese J, et al. Alzheimer’s Association
recommendations for operationalizing the detection of cognitive impairment during the Medicare
Annual Wellness Visit in a primary care setting. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9(2):141-150. Available at
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1552-5260/PIIS1552526012025010.pdf.
800.272.3900 | alz.org®
AD8 = Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia; AWV = Annual Wellness
Visit; GPCOG = General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition; HRA = Health Risk Assessment; MIS
= Memory Impairment Screen; MMSE = Mini Mental Status Exam; MoCA = Montreal Cognitive
Assessment; SLUMS = St. Louis University Mental Status Exam; Short IQCODE = Short Informant
Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly
ALZHEIMER’S ASSOCIATION®
Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Algorithm for Assessment of Cognition
A. Review HRA, clinician observation, self-reported concerns, responses to queries
Signs/symptoms present
Informant available to confirm
B.* Conduct brief structured assessment
• Patient Assessment: Mini-Cog or GPCOG or MIS
• Informant assessment of patient: Short IQCODE, AD8 or GPCOG
Follow-up during subsequent AWV
C. Refer OR Conduct full Dementia Evaluation
Brief assessment(s) triggers concerns: Patient: Mini-Cog
≤3 or GPCOG 5 (5-8 score is indeterminate without informant)
or MIS≤4 or Informant: Short IQCODE ≥ 3.38 or AD8 ≥ 2 or
GPCOG informant score ≤3 with patient score 8
YES NO
NO
NO
YES
YES

Patient name:__________________________ Date: _____________
GPCOG Screening Test
Step 1: Patient Examination
Unless specified, each question should only be asked once
Name and Address for subsequent recall test
1. “I am going to give you a name and address. After I have said it, I want you to repeat
it. Remember this name and address because I am going to ask you to tell it to me
again in a few minutes: John Brown, 42 West Street, Kensington.” (Allow a maximum
of 4 attempts).
Time Orientation Correct Incorrect
2. What is the date? (exact only)
Clock Drawing – use blank page
3. Please mark in all the numbers to indicate
the hours of a clock (correct spacing required)
4. Please mark in hands to show 10 minutes past
eleven o’clock (11.10)
Information
5. Can you tell me something that happened in the news recently?
(Recently = in the last week. If a general answer is given,
eg “war”, “lot of rain”, ask for details. Only specific answer scores).
Recall
6. What was the name and address I asked you to remember
John
Brown
42
West (St)
Kensington
(To get a total score, add the number of items answered correctly
Total correct (score out of 9)
If patient scores 9, no significant cognitive impairment and further testing not necessary.
If patient scores 5-8, more information required. Proceed with Step 2, informant section.
If patient scores 0-4, cognitive impairment is indicated. Conduct standard investigations.
© University of New South Wales as represented by the Dementia Collaborative Research Centre – Assessment and Better Care;
Brodaty et al, JAGS 2002; 50:530-534
/9
5

Informant Interview
Date: ____________
Informant’s name: ___________________________________
Informant’s relationship to patient, i.e. informant is the patient’s: _____________
These six questions ask how the patient is compared to when s/he
was well, say 5 – 10 years ago
Compared to a few years ago:
Don’t
Yes No Know N/A
 Does the patient have more trouble remembering things
that have happened recently than s/he used to?
 Does he or she have more trouble recalling conversations
a few days later?
 When speaking, does the patient have more difficulty in
finding the right word or tend to use the wrong words
more often?
 Is the patient less able to manage money and financial
affairs (e.g. paying bills, budgeting)?
 Is the patient less able to manage his or her medication
independently?
 Does the patient need more assistance with transport
(either private or public)?
(If the patient has difficulties due only to physical problems, e.g bad leg, tick ‘no’)
(To get a total score, add the number of items answered ‘no’, ‘don’t know’ or ‘N/A’)
Total score (out of 6)
If patient scores 0-3, cognitive impairment is indicated. Conduct standard investigations.
© University of New South Wales as represented by the Dementia Collaborative Research Centre – Assessment and Better Care;
Brodaty et al, JAGS 2002; 50:530-534
6

800.272.3900 | alz.org
®
MEMORY IMPAIRMENT SCREEN (MIS)
Instructions for Administration
Word Cue Free recall (2 pts.) Cued Recall (1 pts)
Checkers Game
Saucer Dish
Telegram Message
Red Cross Organization
Scoring
The maximum score for the MIS is 8.
• 5-8 No cognitive impairment
• ≤ 4 Possible cognitive impairment
Copyright © 1999 Albert Einstein College of Medicine. All rights reserved.
1. Show patient a sheet of paper with the 4 items to be recalled in 24-point or greater uppercase
letters (on other side), and ask patient to read the items aloud.
2. Tell patient that each item belongs to a different category. Give a category cue and ask patient to
indicate which of the words belongs in the stated category (eg, “Which one is the game?”). Allow
up to 5 attempts. Failure to complete this task indicates possible cognitive impairment.
3. When patient identifies all 4 words, remove the sheet of paper. Tell patient that he or she will be
asked to remember the words in a few minutes.
4. Engage patient in distractor activity for 2 to 3 minutes, such as counting to 20 and back, counting
back from 100 by 7, spelling WORLD backwards.
5. FREE RECALL — 2 points per word: Ask patient to state as many of the 4 words he or she can
recall. Allow at least 5 seconds per item for free recall. Continue to step 6 if no more words have
been recalled for 10 seconds.
6. CUED RECALL — 1 point per word: Read the appropriate category cue for each word not recalled
during free recall (eg, “What was the game?”).
7

800.272.3900 | alz.org
®
Copyright © 1999 Albert Einstein College of Medicine. All rights reserved.
CHECKERS
SAUCER
TELEGRAM
RED CROSS
WORD LIST
8

Mini-Cog™ Instructions for Administration Scoring
Step 1: Three Word Registration
Step 2: Clock Drawing
Step 3: Three Word Recall
Scoring
Look directly at person and say, “Please listen carefully. I am going to say three words that I want you to repeat back
to me now and try to remember. The words are [select a list of words from the versions below]. Please say them for
me now.” If the person is unable to repeat the words after three attempts, move on to Step 2 (clock drawing).
The following and other word lists have been used in one or more clinical studies.1-3
For repeated administrations,
use of an alternative word list is recommended.
Say: “Next, I want you to draw a clock for me. First, put in all of the numbers where they go.” When that is completed,
say: “Now, set the hands to 10 past 11.”
Use preprinted circle (see next page) for this exercise. Repeat instructions as needed as this is not a memory test.
Move to Step 3 if the clock is not complete within three minutes.
Ask the person to recall the three words you stated in Step 1. Say: “What were the three words I asked you to
remember?” Record the word list version number and the person’s answers below.
Word List Version: _____ Person’s Answers: ___________________ ___________________ ___________________
Version 1
Banana
Sunrise
Chair
Version 4
River
Nation
Finger
Version 2
Leader
Season
Table
Version 5
Captain
Garden
Picture
Version 3
Village
Kitchen
Baby
Version 6
Daughter
Heaven
Mountain
Word Recall: ______ (0-3 points) 1 point for each word spontaneously recalled without cueing.
Clock Draw: ______ (0 or 2 points)
Normal clock = 2 points. A normal clock has all numbers placed in the correct
sequence and approximately correct position (e.g., 12, 3, 6 and 9 are in anchor
positions) with no missing or duplicate numbers. Hands are pointing to the 11
and 2 (11:10). Hand length is not scored.
Inability or refusal to draw a clock (abnormal) = 0 points.
Total Score: ______ (0-5 points)
Total score = Word Recall score + Clock Draw score.
A cut point of 3 on the Mini-Cog™ has been validated for dementia screening,
but many individuals with clinically meaningful cognitive impairment will score
higher. When greater sensitivity is desired, a cut point of 4 is recommended as
it may indicate a need for further evaluation of cognitive status.
Mini-Cog™ © S. Borson. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of the author solely for clinical and educational purposes.
May not be modified or used for commercial, marketing, or research purposes without permission of the author (soob@uw.edu).
v. 01.19.16
ID: ______________ Date: ________________________
9

1. Borson S, Scanlan JM, Chen PJ et al. The Mini-Cog as a screen for dementia: Validation in a population-based
sample. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:1451–1454.
2. Borson S, Scanlan JM, Watanabe J et al. Improving identification of cognitive impairment in primary care. Int J
Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;21: 349–355.
3. Lessig M, Scanlan J et al. Time that tells: Critical clock-drawing errors for dementia screening. Int
Psychogeriatr. 2008 June; 20(3): 459–470.
4. Tsoi K, Chan J et al. Cognitive tests to detect dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern
Med. 2015; E1-E9.
5. McCarten J, Anderson P et al. Screening for cognitive impairment in an elderly veteran population:
Acceptability and results using different versions of the Mini-Cog. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011; 59: 309-213.
6. McCarten J, Anderson P et al. Finding dementia in primary care: The results of a clinical demonstration
project. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60: 210-217.
7. Scanlan J Borson S. The Mini-Cog: Receiver operating characteristics with the expert and naive raters. Int J
Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 16: 216-222.
References
Clock Drawing ID: ______________ Date: ________________________
Mini-Cog™ © S. Borson. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of the author solely for clinical and educational purposes.
May not be modified or used for commercial, marketing, or research purposes without permission of the author (soob@uw.edu).
v. 01.19.16
10

Short Form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive
Decline in the Elderly (Short IQCODE)
by A. F. Jorm
Centre for Mental Health Research
The Australian National University
Canberra, Australia
There is no copyright on the Short IQCODE. However, the author appreciates being
kept informed of research projects which make use of it.
Note: As used in published studies, the IQCODE was preceded by questions to the
informant on the subject's sociodemographic characteristics and physical health.
11
1

Now we want you to remember what your friend or relative was like 10 years ago and
to compare it with what he/she is like now. 10 years ago was in 20__.* Below are
situations where this person has to use his/her memory or intelligence and we want
you to indicate whether this has improved, stayed the same or got worse in that
situation over the past 10 years. Note the importance of comparing his/her present
performance with 10 years ago. So if 10 years ago this person always forgot where
he/she had left things, and he/she still does, then this would be considered Hasn't
changed much. Please indicate the changes you have observed by circling the
appropriate answer.
Compared with 10 years ago how is this person at:
1 2 3 4 5
1. Remembering things about
family and friends e.g.
occupations, birthdays,
addresses
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
2. Remembering things that
have happened recently
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
3. Recalling conversations a
few days later
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
4. Remembering his/her
address and telephone number
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
5. Remembering what day and
month it is
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
6. Remembering where things
are usually kept
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
7. Remembering where to find
things which have been put in
a different place from usual
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
8. Knowing how to work
familiar machines around the
house
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
12

9. Learning to use a new
gadget or machine around the
house
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
10. Learning new things in
general
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
11. Following a story in a book
or on TV
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
12. Making decisions on
everyday matters
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
13. Handling money for
shopping
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
14. Handling financial matters
e.g. the pension, dealing with
the bank
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
15. Handling other everyday
arithmetic problems e.g.
knowing how much food to
buy, knowing how long
between visits from family or
friends
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
16. Using his/her intelligence
to understand what's going on
and to reason things through
Much
improved
A bit
improved
Not much
change
A bit
worse
Much
worse
13
*The original tool was published in 1994.
The Alzheimer's Association updated the year 19__ as published in the original tool to 20__ .
Tool Reference: Jorm AF. A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the
Elderly (IQCODE): development and cross-validation. Psychol Med 1994; 24: 145–153.

AD8 Dementia Screening Interview Patient ID#:__________
CS ID#:___________
Date:___________
NO,
No change
Remember, “Yes, a change” indicates that
there has been a change in the last several
years caused by cognitive (thinking and
memory) problems.
YES,
A change
N/A,
Don’t know
1. Problems with judgment (e.g.,
problems making decisions, bad
financial decisions, problems with
thinking)
Adapted from Galvin JE et al, The AD8, a brief informant interview to detect dementia, Neurology 2005:65:559-564
Copyright 2005. The AD8 is a copyrighted instrument of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
All Rights Reserved.
2. Less interest in hobbies/activities
3. Repeats the same things over and
over (questions, stories, or
statements)
4. Trouble learning how to use a tool,
appliance, or gadget (e.g., VCR,
computer, microwave, remote control)
5. Forgets correct month or year
6. Trouble handling complicated financial
affairs (e.g., balancing checkbook,
income taxes, paying bills)
7. Trouble remembering appointments
8. Daily problems with thinking and/or
memory
TOTAL AD8 SCORE
14

The AD8 Administration and Scoring Guidelines
A spontaneous self-correction is allowed for all responses without counting as an error.
The questions are given to the respondent on a clipboard for self–administration or can be read
aloud to the respondent either in person or over the phone. It is preferable to administer the AD8
to an informant, if available. If an informant is not available, the AD8 may be administered to the
patient.
When administered to an informant, specifically ask the respondent to rate change in the
patient.
When administered to the patient, specifically ask the patient to rate changes in his/her ability
for each of the items, without attributing causality.
If read aloud to the respondent, it is important for the clinician to carefully read the phrase as
worded and give emphasis to note changes due to cognitive problems (not physical problems).
There should be a one second delay between individual items.
No timeframe for change is required.
The final score is a sum of the number items marked “Yes, A change”.
Interpretation of the AD8 (Adapted from Galvin JE et al, The AD8, a brief informant interview to detect dementia,
Neurology 2005:65:559-564)
A screening test in itself is insufficient to diagnose a dementing disorder. The AD8 is, however,
quite sensitive to detecting early cognitive changes associated many common dementing illness
including Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia and frontotemporal
dementia.
Scores in the impaired range (see below) indicate a need for further assessment. Scores in the
“normal” range suggest that a dementing disorder is unlikely, but a very early disease process
cannot be ruled out. More advanced assessment may be warranted in cases where other
objective evidence of impairment exists.
Based on clinical research findings from 995 individuals included in the development and
validation samples, the following cut points are provided:
• 0 – 1: Normal cognition
1.00.80.60.40.20.0
• 2 or greater: Cognitive impairment is likely to
be present
1 - Specificity
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Sensitivity
Reciever Operator Characteristics (ROC) curve for AD8
Administered to either the informant (preferable) or the
patient, the AD8 has the following properties:
• Sensitivity 84%
• Specificity 80%
• Positive Predictive Value 85%
• Negative Predictive Value 70%
• Area under the Curve: 0.908; 95%CI: 0.888-
0.925
15

Copyright 2005. The Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia is a
copyrighted instrument of Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. All Rights Reserved.
Permission Statement
Washington University grants permission to use and reproduce the Eight-item Informant Interview to
Differentiate Aging and Dementia exactly as it appears in the PDF available here without
modification or editing of any kind solely for end user use in investigating dementia in clinical care or
research in clinical care or research (the “Purpose”). For the avoidance of doubt, the Purpose does
not include the (i) sale, distribution or transfer of the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate
Aging and Dementia or copies thereof for any consideration or commercial value; (ii) the creation of
any derivative works, including translations; and/or (iii) use of the Eight-item Informant Interview to
Differentiate Aging and Dementia as a marketing tool for the sale of any drug. All copies of the AD8
shall include the following notice: “Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2005. The Eight-item
Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia is a copyrighted instrument of Washington
University, St. Louis, Missouri. All Rights Reserved.” Please contact morrisj@abraxas.wustl.edu for
use of the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia for any other intended
purpose.
16

Alzheimer’s Association recommendations for operationalizing
the detection of cognitive impairment during the Medicare Annual
Wellness Visit in a primary care setting
Cyndy B. Cordella,
*, Soo Borsonb,c
, Malaz Boustanid,e,f
, Joshua Chodoshg,h
, David Reubenh
,
Joe Verghesei
, William Thiesa
, Leslie B. Friedj,k
; for the Medicare Detection
of Cognitive Impairment Workgroup
a
Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, IL, USA
b
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
c
Memory Disorders Clinic and Dementia Health Services, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
d
Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Indianapolis, IN, USA
e
Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA
f
Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
g
Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA
h
Division of Geriatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
i
Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
j
American Bar Association, Washington, DC, USA
k
Alzheimer’s Association Medicare Advocacy Project, Washington, DC, USA
Abstract The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added a new Medicare benefit, the Annual
Wellness Visit (AWV), effective January 1, 2011. The AWV requires an assessment to detect cog-
nitive impairment. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) elected not to recom-
mend a specific assessment tool because there is no single, universally accepted screen that
satisfies all needs in the detection of cognitive impairment. To provide primary care physicians
with guidance on cognitive assessment during the AWV, and when referral or further testing is
needed, the Alzheimer’s Association convened a group of experts to develop recommendations.
The resulting Alzheimer’s Association Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Algorithm for Assessment
of Cognition includes review of patient Health Risk Assessment (HRA) information, patient ob-
servation, unstructured queries during the AWV, and use of structured cognitive assessment tools
for both patients and informants. Widespread implementation of this algorithm could be the first
step in reducing the prevalence of missed or delayed dementia diagnosis, thus allowing for better
healthcare management and more favorable outcomes for affected patients and their families and
caregivers.
Ó 2013 The Alzheimer’s Association. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Annual Wellness Visit; AWV; Cognitive impairment; Assessment; Screen; Dementia; Alzheimer’s disease;
Medicare; Algorithm; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
1. Introduction
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010
added a new Medicare benefit, the Annual Wellness Visit
(AWV), effective January 1, 2011. The AWV includes
routine measurements such as height, weight, and blood
pressure; a review of medical and family history; an assess-
ment to detect cognitive impairment; and establishment of
a list of current medical providers, medications, and sched-
ule for future preventive services. In addition, during the first
AWVonly, beneficiaries are to be screened for depression (if
*Corresponding author. Tel.: 312-335-5867. Fax: 866-699-1246.
E-mail address: cyndy.cordell@alz.org
1552-5260/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 The Alzheimer’s Association. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2012.09.011
Alzheimer’s Dementia 9 (2013) 141–150
17

not completed under a separate Medicare benefit) and for
functional difficulties using nationally recognized appropri-
ate screening questions or standardized questionnaires. Al-
though the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
in 2003 concluded that there was insufficient published evi-
dence of better clinical outcomes as a result of routine
screening for cognitive impairment in older adults, the
Task Force recognized that the use of cognitive assessment
tools can increase the detection of cognitive impairment
[1]. As per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) regulation, the AWV requires detection of cognitive
impairment by “. assessment of an individual’s cognitive
function by direct observation, with due consideration of in-
formation obtained by way of patient report, concerns raised
by family members, friends, caretakers, or others” [2]. Dur-
ing the public comment period, several organizations, in-
cluding the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the use of
a standardized tool for assessment of cognitive function
should be part of the AWV.
These comments are supported by a number of studies
showing that cognitive impairment is unrecognized in
27%–81% of affected patients in primary care [3–7]. The
use of a brief, structured cognitive assessment tool
correctly classifies patients with dementia or mild
cognitive impairment (MCI) more often than spontaneous
detection by the patients’ own primary care physicians
(83% vs 59%, respectively) [8].
In response to concerns submitted during public comment,
CMS elected not to recommend a specific tool for the final
AWV benefit because “There is no nationally recognized
screening tool for the detection of cognitive impairments at
the present time.” [9]. However, CMS recognizes that with-
out clarification, the full intended benefits of the AWV cogni-
tive assessment may not be realized [10]. CMS is working
with other governmental agencies (e.g., National Institutes
on Aging) on recommendations for use of specific tools.
Understanding that, under the present regulation, each
healthcare provider who conducts an AWV would have to
determine how best to “detect cognitive impairment,” the
Alzheimer’s Association convened the Medicare Detection
of Cognitive Impairment Workgroup to develop recommen-
dations for operationalizing the cognitive assessment com-
ponent in primary care settings. This workgroup was
comprised of geographically dispersed USA experts with
published works in the field of detecting cognitive impair-
ment during primary care visits. The focus on primary care
was deliberate, as most Medicare beneficiaries will receive
their AWV in this setting.
2. Guiding principles for recommendations
2.1. Consensus on general principles
Based on their expertise, the workgroup agreed on the fol-
lowing general principles to guide the development of rec-
ommendations for cognitive assessment:
Detection of cognitive impairment is a stepwise, itera-
tive process.
Informal observation alone by a physician is not suffi-
cient (i.e., observation without a specific cognitive
evaluation).
Detection of cognitive impairment can be enhanced by
specifically asking about changes in memory, lan-
guage, and the ability to complete routine tasks.
Although no single tool is recognized as the “gold stan-
dard” for detection of cognitive impairment, an initial
structured assessment should provide either a baseline
for cognitive surveillance or a trigger for further eval-
uation.
Clinical staff can offer valuable observations of cogni-
tive and functional changes in patients who are seen
over time.
Counseling before and after cognitive assessment is an
essential component of any cognitive evaluation.
Informants (family member, caregiver, etc.) can pro-
vide valuable information about the presence of
a change in cognition.
2.2. Principles specific to the AWV
The AWV requires the completion of a Health Risk As-
sessment (HRA) by the patient either before or during
the visit. The HRA should be reviewed for any reported
signs and symptoms indicative of possible dementia.
The AWV will likely occur in a primary care setting.
Tools for initial cognitive assessments should be brief
(,5 min), appropriately validated, easily administered
by non-physician clinical staff, and available free of
charge for use in a clinical setting.
If further evaluation is indicated based on the results of
the AWV, a more detailed evaluation of cognition
should be scheduled for a follow-up visit in primary
care or through referral to a specialist.
3. Review of available brief tools for use during the AWV
3.1. Workgroup review process
Although there is no single cognition assessment tool that
is considered to be the gold standard, there is a plethora of
tools in the literature. A MEDLINE (PubMed) search con-
ducted in October 2011, using the key words “screening or
detection of dementia or cognitive impairment,” yielded
over 500 publications. To narrow the search to tools more
applicable to the AWV, the workgroup sought to determine
whether the literature offered a consensus regarding brief
cognitive assessment during time-limited primary care visits.
The workgroup focused on systematic evidence review
(SER) studies published since 2000 resulting in four studies
by Lorentz et al, Brodaty et al, Holsinger et al, and Milne et al
[11–14]. Although each SER had a similar objective—to
determine which tools were best for administration during
C.B. Cordell et al. / Alzheimer’s Dementia 9 (2013) 141–150142

primary care visits—different comparison criteria to select
the tools were applied (Table 1). Two other studies were
also considered relevant to the development of the work-
group recommendations: Ismail et al [15] conducted a litera-
ture review designed to identify widely used and most
promising newer brief cognitive tools being used in primary
care and geriatrics, and an SER by Kansagara and Freeman
[16] of six brief cognitive assessment tools that could serve
as possible alternatives to the Mini-Mental State Examina-
tion (MMSE) for use by the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA). Neither study was designed to determinewhich
brief tool is the “best,” but both provided evidence related to
primary care use and performance characteristics of brief
assessments of cognition (Table 1).
3.2. Workgroup review results
Of the five publications that focused specifically on
identifying brief cognitive assessments most suitable or
most used in primary care settings [11–15], all selected
the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS), and four of these
publications [11,12,14,15] also selected the General
Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) and the
Mini-Cog (Table 2).
The following attributes of the GPCOG, Mini-Cog, and
the MIS contributed to their selection as most suited for rou-
tine use in primary care:
Requires 5 minutes or less to administer.
Is validated in a primary care or community setting.
Is easily administered by medical staff members who
are not physicians.
Has good to excellent psychometric properties.
Is relatively free from educational, language, and/or
culture bias.
Can be used by clinicians in a clinical setting without
payment for copyrights.
Charging a fee for clinical use of brief cognitive assess-
ment tool has become an issue because of increased enforce-
ment of the MMSE copyright. First published in 1975 [17],
the MMSE copyright is now held by Psychological Assess-
ment Resources, Inc., which charges a fee for each use (for
exact fees see www.parinc.com). The comparative SER
within the VA [16] evaluated alternatives to the proprietary
MMSE, including the GPCOG and the Mini-Cog, along
with four other brief tools (Table 2). The Mini-Cog and
MIS are copyrighted, but the owners, Soo Borson, MD,
and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, respectively, allow
free use by clinicians as clinical tools with distribution re-
strictions for other entities (e.g., commercial companies).
The GPCOG has similar use rules.
3.3. Patient structured cognitive assessment tools
recommended for AWV
In alignment with the workgroup’s guiding principles
and supported by data in the six selected SERs/reviews,
Table1
Reviewarticlesofbriefcognitiveassessmenttools—selectinclusionandcomparisoncriteria
Lorentzetal,2002[11]Brodatyetal,2006[12]Holsingeretal,2007[13]Milneetal,2008[14]Ismailetal,2010[15]KansagaraandFreeman,2010[16]
Inclusion
criteria
Admin10min
Performancecharacteristics
evaluatedin1community
orclinicalsetting
Admin5minandsimple
ValidatedincommunityorPC
Misclassificationrate
MMSE
NPVMMSE
Studiedinpatients
60years
Criteriontodiagnose
dementiaacceptable
Admintimesuitablefor
PCinUK
GeriatricPCscreensfor
cognitivechange
Toolsmostfrequently
usedinPC
Toolsrecommendedor
newlyusedinPC
ToolsidentifiedbytheVAas
alternativestotheMMSE
Comparison
criteria
Facevalidity,sensitivity,and
specificity
Sociodemographicbiases
ComparisonwithMMSE
Acceptability
Easeofusebynonspecialists
Studyvalidity
ApplicabilitytoPC
Psychometricproperties
Administrationcharacteristics
Admintime
Studyquality
Likelihoodratios
Domainstested
Utilityinspecial
situations
Practicality
Feasibility
Applicability
Psychometricproper-
ties
Summaryofother
studiesandstrength/
weaknessesoftools
Newertoolsthatad-
dressweaknesses
RelevanceofstudytotheVA
setting
Admintime
Sensitivity
Specificity
Cost
Abbreviations:MMSE,Mini-MentalStateExamination;NPV,negativepredictivevalue;PC,primarycare;UK,UnitedKingdom;VA,USDepartmentofVeteranAffairs.
C.B. Cordell et al. / Alzheimer’s Dementia 9 (2013) 141–150 143

the GPCOG, Mini-Cog, and MIS are brief structured
tools that are suitable for assessment of cognitive func-
tion during the AWV. Each tool has unique benefits.
The GPCOG has patient and informant components
that can be used alone or together to increase specificity
and sensitivity [18]. The Mini-Cog has been validated in
population-based studies and in community-dwelling
older adults heterogeneous with respect to language, cul-
ture, and education [19–22]. The MIS is a verbally
administered word-recall task that tests encoding as
well as retrieval [23], and is an option for patients who
have motor impairments that prevent use of paper and
pencil.
3.4. Structured cognitive assessment tools for use with
informants
Cognitive assessment combined with informant-
reported data improves the accuracy of assessment
[24–27]. If an informant is present during the AWV,
use of a structured informant tool is recommended.
Similar to cognitive assessment tools for use with
patients, there is no single “gold standard” informant
tool; however, relatively few brief informant tools
have been validated in community and/or primary care
settings. Brief tools appropriately validated include the
Short IQCODE [25], the AD8 [28], which can be ad-
ministered in-person or by telephone, and the aforemen-
tioned GPCOG [18], which has both patient and
informant components.
4. Recommended algorithm for detection of cognitive
impairment during the AWV
4.1. Incorporating assessment of cognition during the
AWV
The Alzheimer’s Association Medicare Annual Wellness
Visit Algorithm for Assessment of Cognition for consistency
(Figure 1) illustrates a stepwise process. The process is in-
tended to detect patients with a high likelihood of having de-
mentia. The AWV algorithm includes both structured
assessments discussed previously and other less structured
patient- and informant-based evaluations. By assessing and
documenting cognitive status on an annual basis during the
AWV, clinicians can more easily determine gradual cogni-
tive decline over time in an individual patient—a key crite-
rion for diagnosing dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease and
other progressive conditions affecting cognition.
For patients with a previous diagnosis of MCI or demen-
tia, this should be documented and included in their AWV
list of health risk factors. Annual unstructured and structured
cognitive assessments could be used to monitor significant
changes in cognition and potentially lead to a new diagnosis
of dementia for those with MCI or new care recommenda-
tions for those with dementia.
4.2. Detection of cognitive impairment during the AWV—
initial HRA review, conversations, and observations
The first step in detection of cognitive impairment during
the AWV (Fig. 1, Step A), involves a conversation between
Table 2
Brief cognitive assessment tools evaluated in multiple review articles
Assessment Tool
Lorentz et al,
2002 [11]
Brodaty et al,
2006 [12]
Holsinger et al,
2007 [13]
Milne et al,
2008 [14]
Ismail et al,
2010 [15]
Kansagara and
Freeman, 2010* [16]
7-Minute Screener X X X X
AMT X X X X
CAMCOG X Suitedy
CDT X X Suitedz
X X
GPCOG Most suited Most suited X Most suited Most suited X
Mini-Cog Most suited Most suited X Most suited Most suited X
MIS Most suited Most suited Suitedz
Most suited Most suited
MMSE X X Suitedx
X X
MoCA Suitedy
X X
RUDAS X X
SAS-SI X X X
SBT (BOMC, 6-CIT) X X X X X
SPMSQ X X
STMS X X X X
TC X X
Abbreviations: 6-CIT, 6-Item Cognitive Impairment Test; AMT, Abbreviated Mental Test; BOMC, 6-item Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test;
CAMCOG, Cambridge Cognitive Examination; CDT, Clock Drawing Test; GPCOG, General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition; MIS, Memory Impairment
Screen; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; RUDAS, Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment; SAS-SI, Short
and Sweet Screening Instrument; SBT, Short Blessed Test; SLUMS, St Louis Mental Status; SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire; STMS, Short
Test of Mental Status; TC, Time and Change Test.
X 5 assessment reviewed, but not identified as most suited for general use in primary care.
Suited 5 tool appropriate for the following clinical issue: y available time is not limited; z available time is limited; and x cognitive impairment is at least
moderate. Most suited 5 tool identified as most suited for routine use in primary care.
*Kansagara and Freeman evaluated six tools, including the SLUMS, which was not evaluated in any other review.

a clinician and the patient and, if present, any family member
or other person who can provide collateral information. This
introduces the purpose and content of the AWV, which in-
cludes: a review of the HRA; observations by clinicians
(medical and associated staff); acknowledgment of any self-
reported or informant-reported concerns; and conversational
queries about cognition directed toward the patient and others
present. If any concerns are noted, or if an informant is not
present to provide confirmatory information, further evalua-
tion of cognition with a structured tool should be performed.
Patient completion of an HRA is a required element of the
AWVand can be accomplished with the help of a family mem-
ber or other knowledgeable informants, including a profes-
sional caregiver. Published CMS guidance offers healthcare
professionals flexibility as to the specific format, questions,
and delivery methods that can be used for an AWV HRA
[29]. The following questions may be suitable for the AWV
HRA and have been tested and evaluated in the general popu-
lationthroughtheBehavioralRiskFactor SurveillanceSystem
or presented as HRA example questions:
1. During the past 12 months, have you experienced con-
fusion or memory loss that is happening more often or
is getting worse [30]?
2. During the past 7 days, did you need help with others
to perform everyday activities such as eating, getting
dressed, grooming, bathing, walking, or using the toi-
let [29]?
3. During the past 7 days, did you need help from others
to take care of things such as laundry and housekeep-
ing, banking, shopping, using the telephone, food
preparation, transportation, or taking your own medi-
cations [29]?
A noted deficit in activities of daily living (ADLs) (e.g.,
eating and dressing) or instrumental activities of daily living
(IADLs) (e.g., shopping and cooking) that cannot be
Conduct brief structured assessment
Patient Assessment: GPCOG or Mini-Cog or MIS
Informant assessment of patient: AD8 or GPCOG or Short IQCODE
Refer for full dementia evaluation or
Conduct full dementia evaluation
If informant is available during AWV can follow- up same day as AWV and bill for E/M service with
CPT codes 99201-99215. If not, schedule new visit for evaluation and request presence of
family/companion to facilitate assessment.
Follow-up during
subsequent AWV
Brief assessment(s) triggers concerns:
-8 score is indeterminate without
informant) or Mini-
Informant: AD8
patient score 8 3.38
AWV = Annual Wellness Visit; GPCOG = General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition; HRA = Health Risk Assessment;
MIS = Memory Impairment Screen; MMSE = Mini Mental Status Exam; MoCA = Montreal Cognitive Assessment; SLUMS =
St. Louis University Mental Status Exam; Short IQCODE = short Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly
Review HRA (especially reports of functional deficits), clinician observations, and self-
reported concerns; and query patient and, if available, informant
A
B
*
C
* No one tool is recognized as the best brief assessment to determine if a full dementia evaluation is
needed. Alternate tools (eg, MMSE, SLUMS, or MoCA) can be used at the discretion of the clinician.
Some providers use multiple brief tools prior to referral or initiation of a full dementia evaluation.
Signs/symptoms of cognitive
impairment present
Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (HCPCS codes G0438 or G0439)
Yes No
Informant
available to
confirm
Yes
No
No
Yes
Fig. 1. Alzheimer’s Association Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Algorithm for Assessment of Cognition.

attributed to physical limitations should prompt concern, as
there is a strong correlation between decline in function and
decline in cognitive status across the full spectrum of demen-
tia [31]. In addition to clinically observed concerns, any pa-
tient- or informant-reported concerns should trigger further
evaluation [13]. Positive responses to conversational
queries, such as “Have you noticed any change in your mem-
ory or ability to complete routine tasks, such as paying bills
or preparing a meal?” should be followed up with a struc-
tured assessment of cognition.
Upon realizing the time constraints of a typical primary
care visit, if no cognitive concerns surface during the initial
evaluation and this information is corroborated by an infor-
mant, the clinician may elect not to perform a structured cog-
nitive assessment and assume that the patient is not currently
demented. This approach is supported by studies in popula-
tions with low rates of dementia that suggest the absence of
memory difficulties reported by informants and patients re-
duces the likelihood that dementia is present [32,33].
4.3. Structured cognitive assessment tools for use with
patients and informants during the AWV
The second step in detection of cognitive impairment dur-
ing the AWV (Figure 1, Step B) requires cognitive assess-
ment using a structured tool. Based on synthesis of data
from the six review articles previously discussed, patient
tools suitable for the initial structured assessment are the
GPCOG, Mini-Cog, and MIS.
Recognizing that there is no single optimal tool to detect
cognitive impairment for all patient populations and set-
tings, clinicians may select other brief tools to use in their
clinical practice, such as those listed in Table 3. The 15 brief
tools listed were evaluated in multiple review articles
(passed through at least two review search criteria for tools
possibly suited for primary care) or are used in the VA. Tools
listed in Table 3 are subject to the inclusion/exclusion crite-
ria of each review and do not represent the entire listing of
the .100 brief cognitive assessment tools that may be suit-
able for primary care practices.
If an informant is present, defined as someone who can
attest to a patient’s change in memory, language, or function
over time, it is suitable to use the AD8, the informant com-
ponent of the GPCOG, or the Short IQCODE, during the
AWV.
4.4. Primary care workflow considerations
According to the algorithm, any patient who does not
have an informant present should be assessed with a struc-
tured tool. For such patients (and for practices that imple-
ment structured assessments during all AWVs), completion
of this structured assessment can be administered by trained
medical staff as the first step for cognitive impairment detec-
tion. This could improve office efficiency. To increase ac-
ceptance of a structured assessment, the reason provided to
the patient can be normalized with a statement such as,
“This is something I do for all of my older patients as part
of their annual visit.” When the initial assessment prompts
further evaluation, explanation of results should be deferred
until a more comprehensive evaluation has been completed.
“There are many reasons for not getting every answer cor-
rect. More evaluation will help us determine that,” is an ex-
ample statement that may encourage patients to pursue
further testing.
5. Full dementia evaluation
Patients with assessments that indicate cognitive im-
pairment during the AWV should be further evaluated to
determine appropriate diagnosis (e.g., MCI, Alzheimer’s
disease) or to identify other causes. As reflected in the algo-
rithm (Figure 1, Step C), initiation of a full dementia evalu-
ation is outside the scope of the AWV, but can occur in
a separate visit either on the same day, during a newly sched-
uled visit, or through referral to a specialist. Specialists who
have expertise in diagnosing dementia include geriatricians,
geriatric psychiatrists, neurologists, and neuropsychologists.
The two-visit approach has been cited as a time-effective
process to evaluate suspected dementia in primary care
[34] and is consistent with the two-step approach widely
used in epidemiologic research on dementia. Regardless of
the timing and setting, clinicians are encouraged to counsel
patients to include an informant in the diagnostic process.
Components of a full dementia evaluation can vary de-
pending on the presentation and include tests to rule in or
out the various causes of cognitive impairment and establish
its severity. Diagnostic evaluations include a complete med-
ical history; assessment of multiple cognitive domains, in-
cluding episodic memory, executive function, attention,
language, and visuospatial skills; neurologic exam (gait, mo-
tor function, reflexes); ADL and IADL functioning; assess-
ment for depression; and review for medications that may
adversely affect cognition. Standard laboratory tests include
thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), complete blood count
(CBC), serum B12, folate, complete metabolic panel, and,
if the patient is at risk, testing for sexually transmitted dis-
eases (human immunodeficiency virus, syphilis). Structural
brain imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) or computed tomography (CT), is a supplemental
aid in the differential diagnosis of dementia, especially if
neurologic physical exam findings are noted. An MRI or
CT can be especially informative in the following cases: de-
mentia that is of recent onset and is rapidly progressing;
younger onset dementia (,65 years of age); history of
head trauma; or neurologic symptoms suggesting focal
disease.
6. Discussion
Unfortunately, up to 81% of patients who meet the crite-
ria for dementia have never received a documented diagnosis

Table 3
Key advantages and limitations of brief cognitive assessment tools evaluated in multiple reviews and/or for use in the VA
Assessment* Time (wmin) Advantages Limitations
7-Minute Screener [48] 7–12 Little or no education bias
Validated in primary care
Difficult to administer
Complex logarithmic scoring
AMT [49] 5–7 Easy to administer
Verbal memory test (no writing/drawing)
Education/language/culture bias
Limited use in US (mostly used in Europe)
Does not test executive function or visuospatial
skills
CAMCOG [50] 20 Tests many separate domains (7) Difficult to administer
Long administration time
CDT [51] 1 Very brief administration time
Minimal education bias
Lacks standards for administration and scoring
GPCOGy
[18]
Patient 2–5 Developed for and validated in primary care
Informant component useful when initial
complaint is informant-based
Little or no education bias
Multiple languages accessible at www.gpcog.
com.au
Patient component scoring has an indeterminate
range that requires an informant score to assess as
pass or fail
Informant component alone has low specificity
Lacks data on any language/culture biases
Informant 1–3
Mini-Cogy
[8, 19] 2–4 Developed for and validated in primary care
and multiple languages/cultures
Little or no education/language/race bias
Short administration time
Use of different word lists may affect failure rates
Some study results based on longer tests with the
Mini-Cog elements reviewed independently
MIS [23,52] 4 Verbal memory test (no writing/drawing)
Does not test executive function or visuospatial
skills
MMSE [17] 7–10 Most widely used and studied worldwide
Often used as reference for comparative eval-
uations of other assessments
Required for some drug insurance reimburse-
ments
Education/age/language/culture bias
Ceiling effect (highly educated impaired subjects
pass)
Proprietary—unless used from memory, test needs
to be purchased at www.parinc.com
Best performance for at least moderate cognitive
impairment
MoCAy
[53] 10–15 Designed to test for mild cognitive impairment
Multiple languages accessible at www.
mocatest.org
Tests many separate domains (7)
Lacks studies in general practice settings
Education bias (12 years)
Limited use and evidence due to published data
relatively new (2005)
Admin time 10 min
RUDAS [54] 10 Designed for multicultural populations
Little or no education/language bias
Validated in Australian community
SAS-SI [55] 10 Detected dementia better than neuropsycho-
logic testing in a community population
Does not test memory
Lacks data on any education/language/culture
biases
SBT (BOMCy
and
6-CIT) [56,57]
4–6 Verbal test (no writing/drawing) Education/language/cultural/race bias
Scoring can be cumbersome
Does not test executive function
SLUMSy
[58] 7 No education bias
Available at: http://aging.slu.edu/pdfsurveys/
mentalstatus.pdf
Studied in VA geriatric clinic (predominantly white
males)
SPMSQ [59] 3–4 Verbal test (no writing/drawing) Scoring can be cumbersome
Does not test short-term memory
STMSy
[60] 5 Validated in primary care
Education/language/race bias
Studied in relatively educated subjects, may not be
applicable to general population
TC [61] 1 Very brief administration time
Strong language/cultural bias
Abbreviations: 6-CIT, 6-Item Cognitive Impairment Test; AMT, Abbreviated Mental Test; BOMC, 6-item Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test;
CAMCOG, Cambridge Cognitive Examination; CDT, Clock Drawing Test; GPCOG, General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition; MIS, Memory Impairment
Screen; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; RUDAS, Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment; SAS-SI, Short
and Sweet Screening Instrument; SBT, Short Blessed Test; SLUMS, St Louis University Mental Status; SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire;
STMS, Short Test of Mental Status; TC, Time and Change Test.
*References provide descriptions of assessments.
y
Brief tools used in the VA healthcare system reviewed by Kansagara and Freeman.

[35]. Delayed or missed diagnosis deprives affected individ-
uals of available treatments, care plans, and services that can
improve their symptoms and help maintain independence.
Studies show that interventions tailored to patients with de-
mentia can improve quality of care, reduce unfavorable
dementia-related behaviors, increase access to community
services for both the patient and their caregivers, and result
in less caregiver stress and depression [36–42]. Early
diagnosis of dementia also provides families and patients
an opportunity to plan for the future while the affected
individual is still able to participate in the decision-making
processes.
Early detection and medical record documentation may
improve medical care. The medical record could inform
all clinicians, including those who may be managing comor-
bidities on a sporadic basis, that treatment and care should be
adjusted to accommodate cognitive impairment. According
to a 2004 Medicare beneficiary survey, among patients
with dementia, 26% had coronary heart disease, 23% had di-
abetes, and 13% had cancer [43].
It is important to note that the unstructured and structured
cognitive assessments being recommended for the AWVare
only the first steps in diagnosing dementia, and cognitive as-
sessment is best as an iterative process. For example, clini-
cians concerned with HRA information about decline in
function may proceed directly to a structured assessment
or continue to query the patient for additional information;
a self-reported memory concern coupled with a failed struc-
tured cognitive assessment should always result in a full de-
mentia evaluation.
Not all who are referred for further assessment will ul-
timately receive a dementia diagnosis. In a USA primary
care population aged 65 years (N 5 3340), 13% failed
a brief screen for cognitive impairment and approxi-
mately half (n 5 227) agreed to be further evaluated
for dementia [7]. Among the 107 patients ultimately di-
agnosed with dementia, 81% were newly diagnosed
based on the absence of any medical record of dementia,
thus facilitating appropriate medical and psychosocial in-
terventions [7].
Despite the many advantages of early dementia diagno-
sis, several barriers to diagnosis still exist. These include
physician concerns of the time burden resulting from testing
and counseling [35] and stigma concerns among physicians,
patients, and caregivers [35,44,45]. Despite these barriers,
successful widespread implementation of a brief cognitive
assessment has been reported. McCarten et al [22] evaluated
the Mini-Cog for routine cognitive assessment of veterans
presenting for primary care. Of the 8342 veterans ap-
proached, .96% agreed to be assessed and those that failed
the brief assessment exhibited no serious reactions upon dis-
closure of test results.
The AWV provides an unprecedented opportunity to
overcome current barriers and initiate discussions about cog-
nitive function among the growing population most at risk
for Alzheimer’s disease. Detection of cognitive impairment
during the AWV is further supported by previously pub-
lished quality indicators that state all vulnerable elders (de-
fined as persons 65 years who are at risk for death or
functional decline) should be evaluated annually for cogni-
tive and functional status [46].
There are limitations to these recommendations. They
are based on assessment of recommendations from review
articles and on expert opinion, not on a new, comprehensive
review of original research to define the optimal approach
to detection of cognitive impairment or review of emerging
technologies that could assist in testing (e.g., use of online
or electronic tablet applications). Further complicating
SERs of brief cognitive assessment tools is that sensitivity
and specificity will vary depending on the dementia preva-
lence of the study population, the tool(s) used, and the cut
score selected for each tool. Brodaty et al [12] recognized
that published research concerning cognitive impairment
screening tools is uneven in quantity and quality. The liter-
ature also is lacking in comparative validity of brief cogni-
tive assessment tools in low-education or illiterate
populations.
The Alzheimer’s Association Medicare Annual Wellness
Visit Algorithm for Assessment of Cognition is based
on current validated tools and commonly used rule-out
assessments. The use of biomarkers (e.g., CSF tau and
beta amyloid proteins, amyloid tracer positron emission
tomography scans) was not considered as these measures
are not currently approved or widely available for clinical
use.
In 2011, greater than two million Medicare beneficiaries
received their AWV preventive service [47]. There are no
data available as to what methods were used to detect cogni-
tive impairment or how many beneficiaries were assessed
as having cognitive impairment. For future AWVs, the
Alzheimer’s Association Medicare Annual Wellness Visit
Algorithm for Assessment of Cognition provides guidance
to primary care practices on a process to operationalize
this required AWV element. With widespread implementa-
tion of the algorithm, the AWV could be the first step in re-
ducing the prevalence of missed or delayed dementia
diagnoses, thus allowing for better healthcare management
and more favorable outcomes for affected patients and their
families and caregivers.
7. Author Disclosures
Soo Borson is the developer of the Mini-Cog and is the
owner of its copyrights.
Over the past 5 years, Malaz Boustani has received re-
search support for investigator- initiated projects from Forest
Pharmaceutical and Novartis; honoraria from Norvartis and
Pfizer, Inc.; and research support for investigator-initiated
projects from the NIH and AHRQ. Dr Boustani was a mem-
ber of the US Preventive Services Task Force that published

the systematic evidence review, Dementia Screening, for the
AHRQ in 2003.
RESEARCH IN CONTEXT
1. Systematic review: Our research included comparing
five systematic evidence reviews (SER) of brief de-
mentia screening tools published since 2000 and
a 2010 literature review of newer brief assessments
of cognition. Our research focused on determining
if there was a consensus among the published SERs
as to which tool is most suited for primary care and
if there were any common results across the publica-
tions.
2. Interpretation: Our research concluded there is a con-
sensus in the literature concerning suitable tools for
screening for dementia in primary care. We also reaf-
firmed that many validated tools are available, and
that screening for dementia should not be solely
based on a tool, but should be a stepwise process to
include other assessments.
3. Future directions: Further validation of existing and
emerging screening tools (e.g., iPad applications,
gait monitoring) may result in newer tools being rec-
ognized more suitable and practical for primary care
settings.
References
[1] Boustani M, Peterson B, Harris R, Lux L, Krasnov C, Sutton S, et al.
Screening for dementia. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Re-
search and Quality. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK42773/; 2003. Accessed September 3, 2011.
[2] Anonymous. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, 42
CFR. x410.15(a). 2010. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/
text/text-idx?c5ecfrsid56b50669da0f96db4eea346533db23747
rgn5div8view5textnode542:2.0.1.2.10.2.35.4idno542.
[3] Chodosh J, Petitti DB, Elliott M, Hays RD, Crooks VC,
Reuben DB, et al. Physician recognition of cognitive impairment:
evaluating the need for improvement. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;
52:1051–9.
[4] Camicioli R, Willert P, Lear J, Grossmann S, Kaye J, Butterfield P.
Dementia in rural primary care practices in Lake County, Oregon.
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2000;13:87–92.
[5] Callahan CM, Hendrie HC, Tierney WM. Documentation and evalua-
tion of cognitive impairment in elderly primary care patients. Ann In-
tern Med 1995;122:422–9.
[6] Valcour VG, Masaki KH, Curb JD, Blanchette PL. The detection of
dementia in the primary care setting. Arch Intern Med 2000;
160:2964–8.
[7] Boustani M, Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW, Austrom MG,
Perkins AJ, Fultz BA, et al. Implementing a screening and diagnosis
program for dementia in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2005;
20:572–7.
[8] Borson S, Scanlan JM, Watanabe J, Tu S-P, Lessig M. Improving iden-
tification of cognitive impairment in primary care. Int J Geriatr Psychi-
atry 2006;21:349–55.
[9] Anonymous. Medicare coverage of Annual Wellness Visit providing
a personalized prevention plan. Fed Regist 2010;75:73401.
[10] US Department of Health and Human Services. Advisory Council on
Alzheimer’s research, care, and services: opportunities and gaps. 2011.
Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/092711/Mtg1-Slides3.
pdf. Accessed October 14, 2011.
[11] Lorentz WJ, Scanlan JM, Borson S. Brief screening tests for dementia.
Can J Psychiatry 2002;47:723–33.
[12] Brodaty H, Low L-F, Gibson L, Burns K. What is the best dementia
screening instrument for general practitioners to use? Am J Geriatr
Psychiatry 2006;14:391–400.
[13] Holsinger T, Deveau J, Boustani M, Williams JW Jr. Does this patient
have dementia? JAMA 2007;297:2391–404.
[14] Milne A, Culverwell A, Guss R, Tuppen J, Whelton R. Screening for
dementia in primary care: a review of the use, efficacy and quality of
measures. Int Psychogeriatr 2008;20:911–26.
[15] Ismail Z, Rajji TK, Shulman KI. Brief cognitive screening instru-
ments: an update. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2010;25:111–20.
[16] KansagaraD,FreemanM.Asystematicevidencereviewofthesignsand
symptoms of dementia and brief cognitive tests. Available at: http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21155200. Accessed June 7, 2011.
[17] Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state.” A practi-
cal method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.
J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–98.
[18] Brodaty H, Pond D, Kemp NM, Luscombe G, Harding L, Berman K,
et al. The GPCOG: a new screening test for dementia designed for gen-
eral practice. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50:530–4.
[19] Borson S, Scanlan J, Brush M, Vitaliano P, Dokmak A. The Mini-Cog:
a cognitive “vital signs” measure for dementia screening in multi-
lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000;15:1021–7.
[20] Borson S, Scanlan JM, Watanabe J, Tu S-P, Lessig M. Simplifying de-
tection of cognitive impairment: comparison of the Mini-Cog and
Mini-Mental State Examination in a multiethnic sample. J Am Geriatr
Soc 2005;53:871–4.
[21] Borson S, Scanlan JM, Chen P, Ganguli M. The Mini-Cog as a screen
for dementia: validation in a population-based sample. J Am Geriatr
Soc 2003;51:1451–4.
[22] McCarten JR, Anderson P, Kuskowski MA, McPherson SE, Borson S.
Screening for cognitive impairment in an elderly veteran population:
acceptability and results using different versions of the Mini-Cog.
J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:309–13.
[23] Buschke H, Kuslansky G, Katz M, Stewart WF, Sliwinski MJ,
Eckholdt HM, et al. Screening for dementia with the memory impair-
ment screen. Neurology 1999;52:231–8.
[24] Mackinnon A, Mulligan R. Combining cognitive testing and informant
report to increase accuracy in screening for dementia. Am J Psychiatry
1998;155:1529–35.
[25] Jorm AF. A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive
Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): development and cross-validation.
Psychol Med 1994;24:145–53.
[26] Ayalon L. The IQCODE versus a single-item informant measure to
discriminate between cognitively intact individuals and individuals
with dementia or cognitive impairment. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol
2011;24:168–73.
[27] Galvin JE, Roe CM, Morris JC. Evaluation of cognitive impairment in
older adults: combining brief informant and performance measures.
Arch Neurol 2007;64:718–24.
[28] Galvin JE, Roe CM, Xiong C, Morris JC. Validity and reliability
of the AD8 informant interview in dementia. Neurology 2006;
67:1942–8.
[29] Goetzel R, Staley P, Ogden L, Strange P, Fox J, Spangler J, et al. A
framework for patient-centered health risk assessments—providing
health promotion and disease prevention services to Medicare benefi-
ciaries. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.
cdc.gov/policy/opth/hra/; 2011.
[30] Anonymous. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey
Questionnaire. Bethesda, MD: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/
pdf-ques/2011brfss.pdf; 2011. Accessed January 10, 2012.
[31] Njegovan V, Hing MM, Mitchell SL, Molnar FJ. The hierarchy of
functional loss associated with cognitive decline in older persons.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M638–43.
[32] Carr DB, Gray S, Baty J, Morris JC. The value of informant versus in-
dividual’s complaints of memory impairment in early dementia. Neu-
rology 2000;55:1724–6.
[33] Tobiansky R, Blizard R, Livingston G, Mann A. The Gospel Oak Study
stage IV: the clinical relevance of subjective memory impairment in
older people. Psychol Med 1995;25:779–86.
[34] Simmons BB, Hartmann B, Dejoseph D. Evaluation of suspected de-
mentia. Am Fam Physician 2011;84:895–902.
[35] Bradford A, Kunik ME, Schulz P, Williams SP, Singh H. Missed and
delayed diagnosis of dementia in primary care: prevalence and contrib-
uting factors. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009;23:306–14.
[36] Bass DM, Clark PA, Looman WJ, McCarthy CA, Eckert S. The Cleve-
land Alzheimer’s managed care demonstration: outcomes after 12
months of implementation. Gerontologist 2003;43:73–85.
[37] Callahan CM, Boustani MA, Unverzagt FW, Austrom MG,
Damush TM, Perkins AJ, et al. Effectiveness of collaborative care
for older adults with Alzheimer disease in primary care: a randomized
controlled trial. JAMA 2006;295:2148–57.
[38] Fortinsky RH, Unson CG, Garcia RI. Helping family caregivers by
linking primary care physicians with community-based dementia
care services: the Alzheimer’s Service Coordination Program. Demen-
tia 2002;1:227–40.
[39] Reuben DB, Roth CP, Frank JC, Hirsch SH, Katz D, McCreath H, et al.
Assessing care of vulnerable elders—Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot
study of a practice redesign intervention to improve the quality of de-
mentia care. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58:324–9.
[40] Vickrey BG, Mittman BS, Connor KI, Pearson ML, Della Penna RD,
Ganiats TG, et al. The effect of a disease management intervention on
quality and outcomes of dementia care: a randomized, controlled trial.
Ann Intern Med 2006;145:713–26.
[41] Olazaran J, Reisberg B, Clare L, Cruz I, Pe~na-Casanova J, Del Ser T,
et al. Nonpharmacological therapies in Alzheimer’s disease: a system-
atic review of efficacy. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2010;30:161–78.
[42] Auclair U, Epstein C, Mittelman M. Couples counseling in Alz-
heimer’s disease: additional clinical cindings from a novel intervention
study. Clin Gerontol 2009;32:130–46.
[43] Thies W, Bleiler L. 2011 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alz-
heimers Dement 2011;7:208–44.
[44] Justiss MD, Boustani M, Fox C, Katona C, Perkins AJ, Healey PJ, et al.
Patients’ attitudes of dementia screening across the Atlantic. Int J Ger-
iatr Psychiatry 2009;24:632–7.
[45] Boustani MA, Justiss MD, Frame A, Austrom MG, Perkins AJ,
Cai X, et al. Caregiver and noncaregiver attitudes toward dementia
screening. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:681–6.
[46] Feil DG, MacLean C, Sultzer D. Quality indicators for the care of de-
mentia in vulnerable elders. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55(Suppl
2):S293–301.
[47] Anonymous. Preventive New Media. Centers for Medicare
Medicaid Services. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/NewMedia/
02_preventive.asp; 2011. Accessed January 10, 2012.
[48] Solomon PR, Pendlebury WW. Recognition of Alzheimer’s disease:
the 7 Minute Screen. Fam Med 1998;30:265–71.
[49] Hodkinson HM. Evaluation of a mental test score for assessment of
mental impairment in the elderly. Age Ageing 1972;1:233–8.
[50] Roth M. CAMDEX: the Cambridge examination for mental disorders
of the elderly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.
[51] Shulman KI. Clock-drawing: is it the ideal cognitive screening test? Int
J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000;15:548–61.
[52] Kuslansky G, Buschke H, Katz M, Sliwinski M, Lipton RB. Screening
for Alzheimer’s disease: the memory impairment screen versus the
conventional three-word memory test. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;
50:1086–91.
[53] Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, Charbonneau S,
Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment,
MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am
Geriatr Soc 2005;53:695–9.
[54] Storey JE, Rowland JTJ, Basic D, Conforti DA, Dickson HG. The
Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS): a multicul-
tural cognitive assessment scale. Int Psychogeriatr 2004;16:13–31.
[55] Belle SH, Mendelsohn AB, Seaberg EC, Ratcliff G. A brief cognitive
screening battery for dementia in the community. Neuroepidemiology
2000;19:43–50.
[56] Katzman R, Brown T, Fuld P, Peck A, Schechter R, Schimmel H. Val-
idation of a short Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test of cogni-
tive impairment. Am J Psychiatry 1983;140:734–9.
[57] Brooke P, Bullock R. Validation of a 6 item cognitive impairment test
with a view to primary care usage. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999;
14:936–40.
[58] Tariq SH, Tumosa N, Chibnall JT, Perry MH 3rd, Morley JE. Compar-
ison of the Saint Louis University mental status examination and the
mini-mental state examination for detecting dementia and mild neuro-
cognitive disorder—a pilot study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;
14:900–10.
[59] Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assess-
ment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc
1975;23:433–41.
[60] Kokmen E, Naessens JM, Offord KP. A short test of mental status: de-
scription and preliminary results. Mayo Clin Proc 1987;62:281–8.
[61] Inouye SK, Robison JT, Froehlich TE, Richardson ED. The time and
change test: a simple screening test for dementia. J Gerontol A Biol
Sci Med Sci 1998;53:M281–6.

Cognitive Assessment Tool Kit

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Cognitive Assessment Tool Kit (20)

More from Paul Coelho, MD (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Cognitive Assessment Tool Kit