Focus on designing health care structures and services for rare diseases

Uncovering health and social care needs among myotonic dystrophy patients: Utility of the Needs and Provisions Complexity Scale

OBJECTIVES

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a slowly progressive multisystem disorder. Guidelines recommend multidisciplinary follow-up. We aimed to investigate the presence of unmet health and social care needs among patients with DM1 and whether unmet needs correlated with motor function, cognitive impairments, or quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients were 22 adults with DM1. "Needs and Provisions Complexity Scale" (NPCS) was applied to evaluate the individual's needs and provision of health and social services. The Muscular Impairment Rating Scale (MIRS) was used to measure motor function and disease stage. All patients underwent neuropsychological testing. The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was used to evaluate the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

RESULTS

Median time from diagnosis was 11 years (range: 1-40). Twenty patients had developed needs related to social care, personal care, and rehabilitation that had not been met, whereas need for medical follow-up was largely met. The more pronounced the muscular impairment, the more unmet needs were experienced by DM1 patients (r = 0.50, P = 0.019). Degree of unmet needs did not correlate with full-scale IQ (r = -0.27, P = 0.23) or HRQoL (r = -0.14, P = 0.55).

CONCLUSION

Using NPCS, we discovered that patients with DM1 had unmet needs with respect to social care, personal care, and rehabilitation although their need for medical follow-up was met. Thus, the use of NPCS helped bring our practice in better accordance with guidelines. A higher MIRS grade should alert the clinician to the likelihood of unmet needs.

Policy recommendations for rare disease centres of expertise

AIM

Rare diseases are a serious public health concern and are a priority in the EU. This study aims to develop policy recommendations for rare disease centres of expertise (CoEs) in order to improve standards and quality of care.

SUBJECT AND METHODS

A modified 3-round Delphi technique was used. Participants included rare diseases patients, carers, patient representatives and healthcare professionals (HCPs) from CoEs in two countries-Denmark and the UK.

RESULTS

The results suggest the need to make improvements within current CoE environments, access to CoEs and the need for coordination and cooperation of services within and outside CoEs. It is recommended that CoEs are not overly 'medicalised', while at the same time they should be established as research facilities. The importance of including patient representatives in CoE performance management was also highlighted. Raising awareness and provision of appropriate training amongst non-specialist HCPs is seen as a priority for early and correct diagnosis and ensuring high quality care. Similarly, provision of targeted information about patients' illness and care was considered essential along with access to social assistance within CoEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy recommendations were developed in areas previously recognised as having gaps. Their implementation is expected to strengthen and improve current care provision for rare disease patients. In member states where national plans and strategies are being developed, it is recommended to replicate the methodological approach used in this study as it has proven to be a helpful tool in rare disease centres of expertise policy development.