Issues in the clinical assessment and management of people living with motor neurone disease (MND): a survey of Australian healthcare professionals

Résumé fourni par la source

Objective: To inform the development of the Australian MND Guideline, this study aimed to identify challenges Australian healthcare professionals (HCPs) face in the clinical assessment and management of people living with MND (plwMND) including where practice varies from evidence or is underrepresented in the literature and challenges that arise when supporting non-MND specialists. Methods: An anonymous online survey was developed on Qualtrics (Provo, UT) and distributed in July 2025 to members of the Australian MND Guideline Clinical and Content Advisory Group. Demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and verbatim responses were analyzed thematically to a pre-defined framework of guideline scopes and topics. Results: Fifty HCPs, predominantly allied health professionals, completed the survey (55% response rate). HCPs reported diagnostic delays, difficulties accessing timely multidisciplinary support, and challenges coordinating care, particularly outside MND clinic catchment areas. HCPs perceived uncertainty in respiratory support, nutrition, saliva management, and psychological and cognitive care. Variations from guidance reflected gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence base, the need for individualized care, and systemic constraints including funding, workforce shortages, and inequities in access. Non-MND specialists sought guidance on prognosis, referral pathways, symptom management, and end-of-life care. Conclusion: This survey identified areas of clinical practice uncertainty and variability in the clinical assessment and management of plwMND from the perspective of Australian HCPs. These findings will inform the development of the Australian MND Guideline, including prioritization of topics and questions, and consideration of areas where expert consensus is required.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.