Developing and assessing the acceptability of an epilepsy first aid training intervention for patients who visit UK emergency departments: A multi-method study of patients and professionals

Decreasing Emergency Department Visits for Children With Epilepsy

Background and Objectives

Epilepsy and seizures represent a frequent cause of emergency department (ED) visits for patients. By implementing quality improvement (QI) methodology, we planned to decrease ED visits for children and adolescents with epilepsy.

Methods

In 2016, a multidisciplinary team was created to implement QI methodology to address ED visits for patients with epilepsy. Based on previous successes, further ED visit reduction was deemed possible. Our aim statement was to decrease the number of ED visits, per 1000 established patients with epilepsy, from 13.03 to 11.6, by December 2019 and sustain for 1 year.

Results

We successfully decreased ED visits for seizure-related care in patients with epilepsy from 13.03% to 10.2% per 1,000 patients, which resulted in a centerline shift.

Discussion

Using QI methodology, we improved the outcome measure of decreasing ED visits for children with epilepsy. Implementations of these interventions can be considered at other institutions that may lead to similar results.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of epilepsy self-management programs: a systematic review using qualitative evidence synthesis methods

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy affects nearly 50 million people worldwide. Self-management is critical for individuals with epilepsy in order to maintain optimal physical, cognitive, and emotional health. Implementing and adopting a self-management program requires considering many factors at the person, program, and systems levels. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies to identify facilitators and barriers that impact implementation and adoption of self-management programs for adults with epilepsy.

METHODS

We used established systematic review methodologies for qualitative and mixed-methods studies. We included studies addressing facilitators (i.e., factors that aided) or barriers (i.e., factors that impeded) to implementation and adoption of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. We conducted a narrative thematic synthesis to identify facilitators and barriers.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 2700 citations; 13 studies met eligibility criteria. Our synthesis identified five themes that categorize facilitators and barriers to successful implementation epilepsy self-management: (1) relevance, intervention content that facilitates acquisition of self-management skills; (2) personalization, intervention components that account for the individual's social, physical, and environmental characteristics; (3) intervention components, components and dosing of the intervention; (4) technology considerations, considerations that account for individual's use, familiarity with, and ownership of technology; and (5) clinician interventionist, role and preparation of the individual who leads intervention. We identified facilitators in 11 of the 13 studies and barriers in 11 of the 13 studies and classified these by social-ecological level (i.e., patient/caregiver, program, site/system).

CONCLUSION

Identification of facilitators and barriers at multiple levels provides insight into disease-specific factors that influence implementation and adoption of self-management programs for individuals with epilepsy. Our findings indicate that involving individuals with epilepsy and their caregivers in intervention development, and then tailoring intervention content during the intervention, can help ensure the content is relevant to intervention participants. Our findings also indicate the role of the clinician (i.e., the individual who provides self-management education) is important to intervention implementation, and key issues with clinicians were identified as barriers and opportunities for improvement. Overall, our findings have practical value for those seeking to implement and adopt self-management interventions for epilepsy and other chronic illnesses.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number is CRD42018098604.

Seizure First Aid Training For people with Epilepsy (SAFE) frequently attending emergency departments and their significant others: results of a UK multi-centre randomised controlled pilot trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility and optimal design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Seizure First Aid Training For Epilepsy (SAFE).

DESIGN

Pilot RCT with embedded microcosting.

SETTING

Three English hospital emergency departments (EDs).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥16 with established epilepsy reporting ≥2 ED visits in the prior 12 months and their significant others (SOs).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients (and their SOs) were randomly allocated (1:1) to SAFE plus treatment-as-usual (TAU) or TAU alone. SAFE is a 4-hour group course.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Two criteria evaluated a definitive RCT's feasibility: (1) ≥20% of eligible patients needed to be consented into the pilot trial; (2) routine data on use of ED over the 12 months postrandomisation needed securing for ≥75%. Other measures included eligibility, ease of obtaining routine data, availability of self-report ED data and comparability, SAFE's effect and intervention cost.

RESULTS

Of ED attendees with a suspected seizure, 424 (10.6%) patients were eligible; 53 (12.5%) patients and 38 SOs consented. Fifty-one patients (and 37 SOs) were randomised. Routine data on ED use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% patients. Self-report ED data were available for 66.7% patients. Patients reported more visits compared with routine data. Most (76.9%) patients randomised to SAFE received it and no related serious adverse events occurred. ED use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE+TAU arm compared with TAU alone, but not significantly (rate ratio=0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.17). A definitive trial would need ~674 patient participants and ~39 recruitment sites. Obtaining routine data was challenging, taking ~8.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In satisfying only one predetermined 'stop/go' criterion, a definitive RCT is not feasible. The low consent rate in the pilot trial raises concerns about a definitive trial's finding's external validity and means it would be expensive to conduct. Research is required into how to optimise recruitment from the target population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13871327.

Exploring epilepsy attendance at the emergency department and interventions which may reduce unnecessary attendances: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Repeat attendances to emergency departments for seizures, impacts on the individual and burdens health care systems. We conducted a review to identify implementable measures which improve the management of people with epilepsy reducing healthcare costs and their supportive evidence.

METHODS

A scoping review design using suitable search strategy as outlined by PRISMA-ScR was used to examine seven databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsychINFO, HMIC and BNI. A manual search of the COCHRANE database and citation searching was also conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted to explore the context and reasons of emergency department attendance for seizures, particularly repeat attendances and the strategies and measures deployed to reduce repeat attendances.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine reports were included, comprising of a systematic review, a randomised control study, a multi-method study, quantitative studies (n = 17), qualitative studies (n = 6), an audit, a survey and a quality improvement project. Thematic analysis identified four broad areas for reducing repeat attendances. These were developing care pathways, conducting care and treatment reviews, providing educational interventions and role of ambulance staff.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate varied reasons for attendance at ED following seizure, including mental health and knowledge of seizure management and lack of education. Implementations of care pathways in ED have been found to reduce admission related costs.

Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition resulting in recurrent seizures. Research evidence in long-term conditions suggests that patients benefit from self-management education and that this may improve quality of life (QoL). Epilepsy self-management education has yet to be tested in a UK setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Management education for people with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)].

DESIGN

A parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from eight hospitals in London and south-east England.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥ 16 years with epilepsy and two or more epileptic seizures in the past year, who were currently being prescribed antiepileptic drugs.

INTERVENTION

A 2-day group self-management course alongside treatment as usual (TAU). The control group received TAU.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome is QoL in people with epilepsy at 12-month follow-up using the Quality Of Life In Epilepsy 31-P (QOLIE-31-P) scale. Other outcomes were seizure control, impact of epilepsy, medication adverse effects, psychological distress, perceived stigma, self-mastery and medication adherence. Cost-effectiveness analyses and a process evaluation were undertaken.

RANDOMISATION

A 1 : 1 ratio between trial arms using fixed block sizes of two.

BLINDING

Participants were not blinded to their group allocation because of the nature of the study. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis remained blinded throughout.

RESULTS

The trial completed successfully. A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study [SMILE (UK), n = 205; TAU, n = 199] with 331 completing the final follow-up at 12 months [SMILE (UK), n = 163; TAU, n = 168]. In the intervention group, 61.5% completed all sessions of the course. No adverse events were found to be related to the intervention. At baseline, participants had a mean age of 41.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years], and had epilepsy for a median of 18 years. The mean QOLIE-31-P score for the whole group at baseline was 66.0 out of 100.0 (SD 14.2). Clinically relevant levels of anxiety symptoms were reported in 53.6% of the group and depression symptoms in 28.0%. The results following an intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in any measures at the 12-month follow-up [QOLIE-31-P: SMILE (UK) mean: 67.4, SD 13.5; TAU mean: 69.5, SD 14.8]. The cost-effectiveness study showed that SMILE (UK) was possibly cost-effective but was also associated with lower QoL. The process evaluation with 20 participants revealed that a group course increased confidence by sharing with others and improved self-management behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS

For people with epilepsy and persistent seizures, a 2-day self-management education course is cost-saving, but does not improve QoL after 12-months or reduce anxiety or depression symptoms. A psychological intervention may help with anxiety and depression. Interviewed participants reported attending a group course increased their confidence and helped them improve their self-management.

FUTURE WORK

More research is needed on self-management courses, with psychological components and integration with routine monitoring.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN57937389.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Assessing Treatment Fidelity within an Epilepsy Randomized Controlled Trial: Seizure First Aid Training for People with Epilepsy Who Visit Emergency Departments

Purpose

To measure fidelity with which a group seizure first aid training intervention was delivered within a pilot randomized controlled trial underway in the UK for adults with epilepsy who visit emergency departments (ED) and informal carers. Estimates of its effects, including on ED use, will be produced by the trial. Whilst hardly ever reported for trials of epilepsy interventions—only one publication on this topic exists—this study provides the information on treatment fidelity necessary to allow the trial's estimates to be accurately interpreted. This rare worked example of how fidelity can be assessed could also provide guidance sought by neurology trialists on how to assess fidelity.

Methods

53 patients who had visited ED on ≥2 occasions in prior year were recruited for the trial; 26 were randomized to the intervention. 7 intervention courses were delivered for them by one facilitator. Using audio recordings, treatment “adherence” and “competence” were assessed. Adherence was assessed by a checklist of the items comprising the intervention. Using computer software, competence was measured by calculating facilitator speech during the intervention (didacticism). Interrater reliability was evaluated by two independent raters assessing each course using the measures and their ratings being compared.

Results

The fidelity measures were found to be reliable. For the adherence instrument, raters agreed 96% of the time, PABAK-OS kappa 0.91. For didacticism, raters' scores had an intraclass coefficient of 0.96. In terms of treatment fidelity, not only were courses found to have been delivered with excellent adherence (88% of its items were fully delivered) but also as intended they were highly interactive, with the facilitator speaking for, on average, 55% of course time.

Conclusions

The fidelity measures used were reliable and showed that the intervention was delivered as attended. Therefore, any estimates of intervention effect will not be influenced by poor implementation fidelity.