Applying ethical principles in discussing SUDEP with patients and families

The value of ethical principles to reflect on emerging issues in epilepsy care and research

In the age of patient participation, ethics are more important than ever to help guide clinicians in situations of uncertainty. Principles of Biomedical Ethics by James F. Childress and Thomas L. Beauchamp remains the most important reference in medical ethics. In their work, they conceptualize four principles designed to help guide clinicians in decision making, notably beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. While using ethical principles dates back to at least Hippocrates, the introduction by Beauchamp and Childress of the principles of autonomy and justice have helped to deal with new challenges. This contribution will discuss how the principles can help elucidate issues of patient participation in epilepsy care and research using two case studies. METHODS: In this paper, we will discuss the equilibrium to be found between two principles (beneficence and autonomy) in the context of emerging debates in epilepsy care and research. The methods section details the specificities of each principle and their relevance to epilepsy care and research. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Using two case studies, we will explore the potential and limits of patient participation and how the ethical principles may help to provide nuance and reflection in this emerging debate. First of all, we will explore a clinical case which involves a conflictual situation with the patient and family about psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. We will then discuss an emerging issue in epilepsy research, namely the integration of persons with severe refractory epilepsy as patient research partners.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP): A Review of Risk Factors and Possible Interventions in Children

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a serious and devastating, yet poorly understood outcome in epilepsy. This review discusses the current knowledge and understanding of SUDEP in children and adolescents. Established risk factors for SUDEP include history of generalized tonic-clonic seizures and nocturnal seizures. Other proposed risk factors include the use of multiple antiseizure medications and poor medication adherence. Possible prevention strategies for SUDEP include improved medication adherence, surgical interventions, nighttime safety, seizure detection devices, and diet. Pediatric providers have a great opportunity to educate families about SUDEP, assess medication adherence, and provide families with tools to improve medication adherence and learn about SUDEP in children and adolescents with epilepsy. Future research in SUDEP aims to further understand the etiology and risk factors of SUDEP, while developing more intervention strategies to prevent SUDEP.

Why child neurologists talk about SUDEP: Results from two cross-sectional surveys

Objective

To characterize SUDEP discussion practices of child neurologists approximately 6 and 12 months after publication of the American Academy of Neurology SUDEP Clinical Practice Guideline and explore factors associated with discussion practice.

Methods

Child Neurology Society members (~2450) were electronically surveyed in November 2017 and May 2018 regarding their practice of discussing SUDEP with patients with epilepsy or their caregivers. Multivariable proportional odds ordinal logistic regression evaluated factors associated with discussing SUDEP with a greater proportion of epilepsy patients/caregivers. Reasons for changing practice were described.

Results

Among the 369 child neurologist respondents, 36% reported discussing SUDEP with at least half of their epilepsy patients/caregivers including 12% who discuss with all or almost all (>90%) of their epilepsy patients/families. Those who discussed SUDEP with an increased proportion of their patients were more likely to agree that they knew enough to talk about SUDEP, agree that healthcare providers have an ethical obligation to discuss SUDEP, and disagree that there is not enough time to talk about SUDEP. Those who agreed SUDEP could provoke excessive anxiety or worry were less likely to discuss SUDEP with an increased proportion of their patients. Reading the SUDEP Clinical Practice Guideline was a frequently cited reason among respondents who reported a recent change in discussion practice.

Significance

Most child neurologists do not follow the current SUDEP Clinical Practice Guideline regarding SUDEP discussion. Feeling sufficiently knowledgeable and ethically obligated to discuss SUDEP were associated with increased discussion practice, suggesting an educational intervention may be effective at increasing SUDEP discussion rates.

Keep safe: The when, why and how of epilepsy risk communication

PURPOSE

Risk communication between clinicians and people with epilepsy (PWE) and their families is under researched. There is limited guidance about when and how to have these discussions. This paper explores the current evidence on quality of risk related conversations in epilepsy and suggests a concept of an evidence-based guideline for person centred structured risk communication.

METHODS

A literature search of four electronic database, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PUBMED, and CINAHL, was conducted by two independent reviewers using relevant search terms following the principals of the PRISMA guidance. No limits were applied. Supplementary searches included using backwards and forwards citation searching. A predesigned inclusion and exclusion criteria was administered to the identified results.

RESULTS

From 376 results identified, 17 studies met the final criteria of which ten were quantitative, five qualitative and two mixed methods. Perspectives of PWE and clinicians were represented. Extracted data was clustered into three domains: communication initiation (e.g. timing, individual tailoring); communication methods (preference for face to face with neurologists); and communication content (acknowledging the anxiety produced by risk communication, the benefits of being self-aware, normalising risk etc.). No papers focused on conversation structure (e.g. helpful phrases), or the best locations to hold conversations.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to develop structured communication of risk. An attempt has been made to put current evidence into this format. Clearer guidance will enhance clinicians' confidence in communicating person centred epilepsy risk with PWE and their families thus improving outcomes.