Accurate diagnosis, prognosis, and subsequent rehabilitation care planning for persons with Disorders of Consciousness (DoC) has historically posed a challenge for neurological care professionals. Evidence suggests rates of misdiagnosis may be as high as 40% when informal beside evaluations are used to determine level of consciousness. The presence of myriad medical, neurological, functional (motor, sensory, cognitive) and environmental confounds germane to these conditions complicates behavioral assessment. Achieving diagnostic certainty is elusive but critical to inform care planning, clinical decision making, and prognostication. Standardized neurobehavioral rating scales has been shown to improve accuracy in distinguishing between coma, unresponsive wakefulness syndrome/vegetative state and minimally consciousness state as compared to informal assessment methods. Thus, these scales are currently recommended for use as the informal “gold standard” for diagnostic assessment in DoC. The following paper will present an evidence-based approach to neurobehavioral assessment for use in clinical practice. Strategies for optimizing assessment and aiding in identification and management of confounds that can limit diagnostic accuracy will be provided. Finally, clinical application of an interdisciplinary approach to identifying and managing confounds will be discussed and how assessment results can be used to identify trends in performance and guide prognostic counseling with families.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines recommend that a multidisciplinary team inclusive of allied healthcare practitioners deliver assessment and intervention for disorders of consciousness. Allied health professionals include music, occupational, physical, and speech therapists. These allied health clinicians are challenged to select interventions due to a lack of evidence-based recommendations regarding rehabilitation interventions that support recovery of consciousness. This umbrella review synthesizes available systematic reviews (SRs) that describe occupational, speech and language, physical and/or musical therapeutic interventions for people with disorders of consciousness. OBJECTIVES: Identify and summarize evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) that examine allied healthcare interventions for patients with disorders of consciousness. Additionally, this umbrella review aims to evaluate the impact of allied health interventions on recovery of consciousness, methodological quality and risk of bias for the included systematic reviews. METHODS: An umbrella review was completed. The review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overview of Reviews (PRIOR) guidance. Five academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for SRs and/or meta-analyses of allied health (i.e., music, occupational, physical, and speech therapy) interventions for disorders of consciousness. For included studies, data were extracted and quality of the SRs appraised using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 checklist. Data extracted from each SR identified the authors and years of primary studies, interventions, comparators, and outcomes related to recovery of consciousness (i.e., neurobehavioral/cognitive), functional status, physiological response pain, and adverse events. Rehabilitation interventions were categorized and described. RESULTS: Fifteen SRs were included and three of these reviews conducted meta-analyses. Identified rehabilitation interventions included: 1) sensory stimulation, 2) median nerve stimulation, 3) communication/environmental control through assistive technology, 4) mobilization, and 5) music-based therapy. SRs were published between 2002 and 2022 and included 2286 participants. Using the AMSTAR 2, the quality of reviews was critically low (k = 6), low (k = 3), moderate (k = 4), and high (k = 2). SRs within this umbrella review demonstrated significant heterogeneity in research methods and use of outcome measures to evaluate the recovery of consciousness within the primary studies. These factors influenced the ability to conduct meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Sensory stimulation, median nerve stimulation, music therapy and mobilization are all interventions that demonstrate some level of benefit, but current SRs fail to prove benefit through high-level quality evidence. There is an indisputable need for continued rehabilitation research to expand options for treatment modalities and to ensure that the interventions being applied to DoC rehabilitation are evidence-based to improve consciousness and recovery.

Severe brain injury can result in disorders of consciousness (DoC), including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, and minimally conscious state. Improved emergency and trauma medicine response, in addition to expanding efforts to prevent premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, has led to an increased number of patients with prolonged DoC. High-quality bedside care of patients with DoC is key to improving long-term functional outcomes. However, there is a paucity of DoC-specific evidence guiding clinicians on efficacious bedside care that can promote medical stability and recovery of consciousness. This Viewpoint describes the state of current DoC bedside care and identifies knowledge and practice gaps related to patient care with DoC collated by the Care of the Patient in Coma scientific workgroup as part of the Neurocritical Care Society’s Curing Coma Campaign. The gap analysis identified and organized domains of bedside care that could affect patient outcomes: clinical expertise, assessment and monitoring, timing of intervention, technology, family engagement, cultural considerations, systems of care, and transition to the post-acute continuum. Finally, this Viewpoint recommends future research and education initiatives to address and improve the care of patients with DoC.

Background: Clinicians are challenged by the ambiguity and uncertainty in assessing level of consciousness in individuals with disorder of consciousness (DoC). There are numerous challenges to valid and reliable neurobehavioral assessment and classification of DoC due to multiple environmental and patient-related biases including behavioral fluctuation and confounding or co-occurring medical conditions. Addressing these biases could impact accuracy of assessment and is an important aspect of the DoC assessment process. Methods: A pre-assessment checklist was developed by a group of interdisciplinary DoC clinical experts and researchers based on the existing literature, current validated tools, and expert opinions. Once finalized, the checklist was electronically distributed to clinicians with a range of experience in neurobehavioral assessment with DoC. Respondents were asked to use the checklist prior to completing a neurobehavioral assessment. A survey was also provided to respondents to obtain feedback regarding checklist feasibility and utility in optimizing the behavioral assessments. Results: Thirty-three clinicians completed the survey after using the checklist. Over half of the respondents were a combination of physicians, neuropsychologists, and physical therapists. All respondents served the adult DoC population and 42% percent had over ten years of clinical experience. Eighty percent reported they found the format of the checklist useful and easy to use. All respondents reported the checklist was relevant to preparing for behavioral assessment in the DoC population. Eighty-four percent reported they would recommend the use of the tool to other clinicians. Conclusions: The use of a pre-assessment checklist was found to be feasible and efficacious in increasing interdisciplinary clinician’s ability to optimize the patient and environment in preparation for neurobehavioral assessment. Initial results of clinicians’ perception of the utility of a pre-assessment checklist were positive. However, further validation of the tool is needed with larger sample sizes to improve representation of clinical use across disciplines and care settings.