Physical rehabilitation of central facial palsy: A survey of current multidisciplinary practice.

Purpose: The role of allied health practitioners providing physical rehabilitation of central facial palsy (CFP) is minimally reported in the literature. This study explores current practice and the roles, attitudes and perceptions of allied health professionals (AHPs) working with people with CFP.Method: An electronic survey was distributed to speech-language pathologists (SLPs), occupational therapists and physiotherapists. Responses (n = 78) were analysed using qualitative and quantitative methods.Result: SLPs often lead management of CFP; however, their role is not clearly defined nor well recognised. Several barriers were identified which prevent AHPs from providing consistent specialist rehabilitation to people with CFP. These included a lack of training, no clear delegation of role, limited evidence and lack of resources.Conclusion: Survey respondents viewed CFP to be within SLP scope of practice; although, ownership of management varies between countries and professions. Most SLPs recognise the negative impact of CFP and feel a sense of responsibility to provide assessment and treatment of this impairment, but many barriers to doing so have been identified. Suggestions to improve access to rehabilitation for people with CFP included increased access to training for SLPs, more evidence, clinical practice guidelines and more clinical resources. Further research is required to ensure people suffering from CFP can access services that provide skilled management of their impairment.

A Systematic Review of Physical Rehabilitation of Facial Palsy.

Background: Facial palsy is a frequent and debilitating sequela of stroke and brain injury, causing functional and aesthetic deficits as well as significant adverse effects on quality of life and well-being. Current literature reports many cases of acquired facial palsy that do not recover spontaneously, and more information is needed regarding the efficacy of physical therapies used in this population. Methods: A systematic search of eight electronic databases was performed from database inception to December 2018. Gray literature searches were then performed to identify additional articles. Studies were included if they addressed physical rehabilitation interventions for adults with acquired facial palsy. Reasons for exclusion were documented. Independent data extraction, quality assessment, and risk of bias assessment followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Following abstract screening, a total of 13 full-text articles were identified for independent screening by two reviewers. This included four randomized control trials, two non-randomized control trials, one cohort study, and six prospective case series studies. Twelve out of the 13 included studies reported on facial palsy as a sequela of stroke. A total of 539 participants received intervention for facial palsy across the 13 included studies. Therapy design, length and frequency of intervention varied across the studies, and a wide range of outcome measures were used. Improvement on various outcome measures was reported across all 13 studies. The quality of the evidence was low overall, and most studies were found to have high risk of bias. Conclusions: All the studies in this review report improvement of facial movement or function following application of various methods of physical rehabilitation for facial palsy. Methodological limitations and heterogeneity of design affect the strength of the evidence and prevent reliable comparison between intervention methods. Strong evidence supporting physical rehabilitation was not found; well-designed rigorous research is required.