FluenceclinicReviews of fluenceclinic.com

The service was easy to use, the online portal is excellent. But most importantly the psych that did my diagnosis was so lovely. I learnt so much about myself in the process and felt seen and affirmed for the first time. The report was extremely detailed and really highlighted my struggles as well as my strengths. It made many things in my life make so much more sense. Highly recommended. Seamless service. Life changing late diagnosis.

The online steps were so easy and made the process such a great experience.

Amazing experience from start to finish! The entire process was quick, straightforward and easy to follow. All the information was clearly explained, which made everything feel so much less overwhelming. My psychiatrist was absolutely amazing, professional, understanding and supportive throughout the entire appointment. I genuinely couldn’t be happier with my experience and am so grateful for how smooth the whole process was. Thank you so much!

Very quick process after Fluence received my GP referral. I could choose which psychiatrist i wanted from a long list. Was seen within 7 days. Easy platform to upload supporting documents. Received my report within a few days of interview. Interview via Telehealth very straightforward and streamline.

Everything was so smooth and easy and I was made to feel comfortable. Very positive experience. Thank you.

Really bad experiences.

I am a registered health professional who conducts autism (ASD) assessments in my own practice. This review concerns an ASD assessment Fluence Clinic carried out for my child, based on the clinic's own reports. Dr Murugesh Nidyananda (psychiatrist) diagnosed my child with Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 2 — a rating denoting substantial support needs — on the basis of a single telehealth appointment and a set of questionnaires. Per the reports: no in-person session was held. No direct standardised observational assessment was used. No cognitive assessment was done — the report states in terms that "formal testing was not conducted." Collateral was taken from my child's mother and maternal grandmother only. As the other parent, with equal shared care under court orders, I was not interviewed before the diagnosis was made. The National Guideline for the Assessment and Diagnosis of Autism in Australia (updated 2023) addresses this directly. Recommendation 18: telehealth "should not be used as the sole medium throughout the assessment and diagnostic process," and at least one in-person session is important (Good Practice Point 18.2). Recommendation 21 (a Strong Recommendation): practitioners "should consult with all relevant stakeholders," including family members and teachers. After I supplied further information, Dr Nidyananda issued an amended report. It retained the diagnosis, but recommended "an independent psychiatrist review with collateral from both parents and the school." In other words, the clinician who made the diagnosis went on to recommend that it be reassessed independently, with the input that was missing the first time. The final report also contained several unfilled template placeholders. It recorded cognition "within normal limits" while confirming no formal testing was conducted — yet assigned a Level 2 severity rating. In my professional opinion, a rating of substantial support needs requires a stated, standardised basis. I could not find one in the report. In my professional opinion, based on the clinic's own documents, this assessment did not meet the standard I would expect of a comprehensive autism assessment. Parents seeking an ASD assessment should read the National Guideline, and ask how information will be gathered across informants and settings, whether in-person and standardised assessment will be used, and how any diagnosis and severity rating is supported.