Blog

Public safety occupations — including police officers, firefighters, paramedics, correctional officers, and military personnel — are generally considered safety-sensitive positions, meaning that impairment, fatigue, psychological difficulties, or significant judgment errors may create a risk of harm to the employee, coworkers, the public, or property. Fitness-for-duty evaluations (FFDEs) are intended to assess whether employees can safely perform these essential functions.

The professionals working in these occupations routinely encounter situations involving trauma, violence, human suffering, and critical incidents that most members of the public will never experience. While exposure to these stressors is often managed successfully, the cumulative effects of operational stress, psychological injury, and personal life challenges can sometimes affect an employee’s ability to safely and effectively perform their duties.

Research has consistently demonstrated that public safety personnel experience higher rates of mental health concerns than the general population, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and substance misuse. At the same time, the vast majority of public safety professionals continue to perform their duties effectively, even when managing significant occupational stress.

Given this reality, FFDEs play an important role in balancing employee wellness, organizational responsibility, and public safety. Although they are sometimes viewed with suspicion or perceived as disciplinary measures, their purpose is to provide an objective, evidence-based assessment of an employee’s current functional capacity relative to the essential requirements of their role.

Fitness-for-duty evaluations are often conducted within broader occupational health or independent medical examination (IME) processes. However, psychological FFDEs are a specialized form of occupational assessment focused specifically on determining whether psychological factors are affecting an employee's ability to safely and effectively perform essential job duties. As a result, the motivation behind the assessment and the questions being addressed are slightly different from those in an IME.

When implemented appropriately, FFDEs support both employees and employers by helping identify risks, accommodations, treatment needs, and pathways toward safe and effective workplace functioning.

Memory loss has long been considered the defining hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. But there is more to the disease than misplaced keys, forgotten names, and other memory lapses. Reducing Alzheimer’s to memory alone oversimplifies a disease that affects multiple aspects of thinking, behavior, and daily functioning.

As researchers develop more sophisticated biomarkers, disease-modifying therapies, and prevention strategies, they also recognize that the tools used to measure cognition must evolve. Alzheimer’s affects far more than memory, and understanding the disease requires assessing the full range of cognitive and behavioral changes that patients experience.

This theme emerged during the third episode of “The Progress Profile: Alzheimer’s Research in Focus,” in which Maria Carrillo, Ph.D., chief science officer and medical affairs lead at the Alzheimer’s Association, joined moderator Dr. John Harrison to discuss why the field is broadening its view of cognitive decline.

For years, the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency™ (BOT™) has been known and trusted for comprehensive evaluation of gross and fine motor skills across a wide range of ages and ability levels. 

But did you know that the latest edition—the BOT™-3—builds on that strong foundation with several brand-new scores that give clinicians even more clinically meaningful information to work with?

In this post, we'll break down each of these new scores, explain what they measure, and highlight how they can enhance your assessment and intervention planning.

Women account for almost two-thirds of people living with Alzheimer's disease. For years, the higher prevalence was largely attributed to the fact that women tend to live longer than men. But during a recent episode of The Progress Profile: Alzheimer's Research in Focus podcast, Phyllis Ferrell, DrPH, MBA, innovator, investor, and incubator for brain health and longevity, argued that explanation no longer tells the whole story.

In a conversation about the future of Alzheimer's research, moderator Dr. John Harrison, engaged Ferrell in conversation about the ways advances in biomarkers, cognitive testing, and precision medicine are revealing important biological differences between men and women. Their discussion highlighted an emerging area of research that could reshape everything from clinical trial design to early diagnosis and treatment.

“We're learning something that we've known in other disease states,” Ferrell said. “Women's brains are not just little men's brains.”

Alzheimer’s disease has long been studied as a distinct condition with its own symptoms, progression, and treatment strategies. But researchers are increasingly looking beyond the diagnosis and asking bigger questions about the biology that drives neurodegeneration.

That broader perspective is the focus of the first episode in the Pearson podcast series, “The Progress Profile: Alzheimer’s Research in Focus.”

In this episode, Lon Schneider, M.D., director of the California Alzheimer’s Disease Center at the University of Southern California; and Stephen Salloway, M.D., founding director of the Memory and Aging Program at Butler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, join moderator John Harrison, Ph.D., associate professor of VU University Medical Center, to discuss the remarkable progress in Alzheimer’s research, the challenges that remain, and how advances in biomarkers, measurement, and early detection are changing the way scientists think about brain health.

Throughout the conversation, one message became clear: Understanding disease biology is just as important as understanding symptoms. Advances in Alzheimer’s research are creating new ways to identify pathology earlier, measure change with more accuracy, and develop interventions increasingly tailored to individual patients.

Rather than focusing only on where a patient is today, the conversation looked at where research is headed and how deeper biological understanding could transform the field.

By the nature of the role, public safety professionals will inevitably find themselves in situations with very high stakes. In these scenarios, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and emergency responders must display good judgment under pressure, regulate their emotions, and use the authority granted to them responsibly. 

Given this context, psychological screening becomes more than a simple hiring formality. Instead, it is a risk management tool. Poor hiring decisions in these types of roles can carry drastic consequences for both the employee and the organization they work for, including, but not limited to, increased risk of workplace injury, legal exposure, damaged reputations, and risks to public safety. For these reasons, it is essential that hiring organizations employ good practices, which often include using experienced and knowledgeable professionals when conducting pre-employment psychological screenings.

“Good practice means following established procedures and guidelines,” says Dr. Sandra Jackson, a clinical and forensic psychologist with extensive experience in pre-employment and employment evaluations for high-risk jobs. “The evaluator needs to be aware of established procedures in psychology and guidelines posted by various organizations for the industry.”