Abstract

ABSTRACT This study was part of a nationwide, anonymous, open Internet survey conducted amongst healthcare professionals in Denmark on the assessment and treatment of spatial neglect (SN). The objective was to describe knowledge and practices in the assessment of SN in current clinical practice across different healthcare sectors and professions. Data included the perceived prevalence, assessment methods and observations, subtypes and differential diagnostics of SN. A total of 525 professionals participated in the survey. The vast majority (81.5%) reported that assessment of SN was provided by their workplace. The median of perceived prevalence of SN was 35% (IQR 22–51) but major differences were found between professions. Occupational therapists and psychologists appeared to be most involved in assessment, whilst nursing staff and speech therapists were least involved. Subjective observations were the most common assessment method (90%). Conversely, systematic ADL observations, paper-and-pencil tests, confrontational tests and computerized tests were less common. The survey revealed large differences in the assessment methods and awareness of various aspects of SN symptoms (subtypes and differential diagnostics) between different healthcare professions. The results emphasize the need for international multidisciplinary clinical guidelines on how to assess SN and distinguish between different subtypes and differential diagnoses.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.