Can an epilepsy nurse specialist-led self-management intervention reduce attendance at emergency departments and promote well-being for people with severe epilepsy? A non-randomised trial with a nested qualitative phase

Developing an alternative care pathway for emergency ambulance responses for adults with epilepsy: A Discrete Choice Experiment to understand which configuration service users prefer. Part of the COLLABORATE project

INTRODUCTION

To identify service users' preferences for an alternative care pathway for adults with epilepsy presenting to the ambulance service.

METHODS

Extensive formative work (qualitative, survey and knowledge exchange) informed the design of a stated preference discrete choice experiment (DCE). This hypothetical survey was hosted online and consisted of 12 binary choices of alternative care pathways described in terms of: the paramedic's access to medical records/ 'care plan', what happens next (described in terms of conveyance), time, availability of epilepsy specialists today, general practitioner (GP) notification and future contact with epilepsy specialists. DCE scenarios were described as: (i) typical seizure at home. (ii) typical seizure in public, (iii) atypical seizure. Respondents were recruited by a regional English ambulance service and by national public adverts. Participants were randomised to complete 2 of the 3 DCEs.

RESULTS

People with epilepsy (PWE; n = 427) and friends/family (n = 167) who completed the survey were representative of the target population. PWE preferred paramedics to have access to medical records, non-conveyance, to avoid lengthy episodes of care, availability of epilepsy specialists today, GP notification, and contact with epilepsy specialists within 2-3 weeks. Significant others (close family members or friends) preferred PWE experiencing an atypical seizure to be conveyed to an Urgent Treatment Centre and preferred shorter times. Optimal configuration of services from service users' perspective far out ranked current practice (rank 230/288 possible configurations).

DISCUSSION

Preferences differ to current practice but have minimal variation by seizure type or stakeholder. Further work on feasibility of these pathways in England, and potentially beyond, is required.

Families' Knowledge Change in Paediatric Drug Resistant Epilepsy: A Novel Clinic Model

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a chronic condition that affects approximately 95,000 Ontarians, of whom approximately 15,000 are children under the age of 18. Drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) will affect around 30% of these children who will require more advanced care due to their medical complexities. The purpose of this study is to determine if receiving care in a paediatric Comprehensive Epilepsy Clinic (CEC) is associated with positive outcomes for children living with DRE and their families by looking at three health outcomes: 1) families' knowledge of their child's diagnosis and treatment plan, 2) navigational access to both the hospital and community epilepsy services, and 3) health behaviours.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study in which families of children diagnosed with DRE would be exposed to a CEC care model for the first time and followed for 6-months after enrollment. This was analyzed by utilizing surveys from new families at baseline and 6 months post receiving care within a CEC.

RESULTS

Results revealed a statistical significance in change of knowledge in families' knowing the type of epilepsy their child has and what epilepsy co-morbidities are. Families' also had a significant change in utilizing hospital epilepsy resources and knowing who to contact in the community and hospital for their epilepsy related questions.

CONCLUSION

A CEC model improves families' knowledge about epilepsy diagnosis and treatment plan, navigational access to both the hospital and community epilepsy services, and health behaviours.

What is the price of residence in rural areas for patients with epilepsy?

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate the effects of the urban or rural dwelling of patients with epilepsy living in Giresun on their use of health services, quality of life, and self-efficacy.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients with epilepsy who were admitted to the neurology outpatient clinic between January 2022 and August 2022 were evaluated. All the participants were individually interviewed to complete the Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES) and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-10) questionnaire. The frequency of admission to the emergency department, neurology outpatient clinic, and general practitioner clinic where the primary reason for the visit was epilepsy in the last year was determined using the hospital database.

RESULTS

This study was composed of 109 patients. The rural dwelling was found in 45% of the participants. The mean age of seizure onset was significantly lower in patients dwelling in rural areas Mean GP and ED visits didn't differ according to dwelling. On the other hand, mean neurology outpatient clinic visits were significantly lower in patients living in rural areas. The QOLIE-10 didn't differ according to the dwelling. However, lower ESES results were obtained in patients living in rural areas.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that there is a disparity in neurologist visits among patients with epilepsy dwelling in rural areas. Furthermore, lower ESES scores were found in these patients. Educational interventions should be addressed particularly to the patients dwelling in rural areas to strengthen self-efficacy, and fill the gaps for the shortage of health personnel and qualified health care.

Seizure first aid training for people with epilepsy attending emergency departments and their significant others: the SAFE intervention and feasibility RCT

Background

No seizure first aid training intervention exists for people with epilepsy who regularly attend emergency departments and their significant others, despite such an intervention’s potential to reduce clinically unnecessary and costly visits.

Objectives

The objectives were to (1) develop Seizure first Aid training For Epilepsy (SAFE) by adapting a broader intervention and (2) determine the feasibility and optimal design of a definitive randomised controlled trial to test SAFE’s efficacy.

Design

The study involved (1) the development of an intervention informed by a co-design approach with qualitative feedback and (2) a pilot randomised controlled trial with follow-ups at 3, 6 and 12 months and assessments of treatment fidelity and the cost of SAFE’s delivery.

Setting

The setting was (1) third-sector patient support groups and professional health-care organisations and (2) three NHS emergency departments in England.

Participants

Participants were (1) people with epilepsy who had visited emergency departments in the prior 2 years, their significant others and emergency department, paramedic, general practice, commissioning, neurology and nursing representatives and (2) people with epilepsy aged ≥ 16 years who had been diagnosed for ≥ 1 year and who had made two or more emergency department visits in the prior 12 months, and one of their significant others. Emergency departments identified ostensibly eligible people with epilepsy from attendance records and patients confirmed their eligibility.

Interventions

Participants in the pilot randomised controlled trial were randomly allocated 1 : 1 to SAFE plus treatment as usual or to treatment as usual only.

Main outcome measures

Consent rate and availability of routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were the main outcome measures. Other measures of interest included eligibility rate, ease with which people with epilepsy could be identified and routine data secured, availability of self-reported emergency department data, self-reported emergency department data’s comparability with routine data, SAFE’s effect on emergency department use, and emergency department use in the treatment as usual arm, which could be used in sample size calculations.

Results

(1) Nine health-care professionals and 23 service users provided feedback that generated an intervention considered to be NHS feasible and well positioned to achieve its purpose. (2) The consent rate was 12.5%, with 53 people with epilepsy and 38 significant others recruited. The eligibility rate was 10.6%. Identifying people with epilepsy from attendance records was resource intensive for emergency department staff. Those recruited felt more stigmatised because of epilepsy than the wider epilepsy population. Routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% of people with epilepsy, but the application process took 8.5 months. Self-reported emergency department data were available for 66.7% of people with epilepsy, and people with epilepsy self-reported more emergency department visits than were captured in routine data. Most participants (76.9%) randomised to SAFE received the intervention. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. No related serious adverse events occurred. Emergency department use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE plus treatment as usual arm than in the treatment as usual only arm, but not significantly so. Calculations indicated that a definitive trial would need ≈ 674 people with epilepsy and ≈ 39 emergency department sites.

Limitations

Contrary to patient statements on recruitment, routine data secured at the pilot trial’s end indicated that ≈ 40% may not have satisfied the inclusion criterion of two or more emergency department visits.

Conclusions

An intervention was successfully developed, a pilot randomised controlled trial conducted and outcome data secured for most participants. The consent rate did not satisfy a predetermined ‘stop/go’ level of ≥ 20%. The time that emergency department staff needed to identify eligible people with epilepsy is unlikely to be replicable. A definitive trial is currently not feasible.

Future work

Research to more easily identify and recruit people from the target population is required.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13871327.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

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.

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

Epilepsy affects around 1% of the UK population; 40% of whom experience two or more seizures annually. However, most Emergency Department (ED) visits by people with epilepsy (PWE) are clinically unnecessary. Evidence highlights that with correct training, seizures can be safely managed by patients and their families within the community. Arguably therefore, PWE who frequently visit the ED might benefit from a self-management intervention that improves their own and their families' confidence and ability in managing seizures. Currently, no such intervention is available for PWE attending the ED. A collaborative approach (patients, carers, health professionals) was adopted to develop a patient-focused, self-management intervention. An existing group-based seizure management course, offered by the Epilepsy Society, was adapted. Collaborative feedback was sought via a base-line document review, one-to-one semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions. The applied framework provided a systematic approach from development through to implementation. Participant feedback overall was extremely positive. People with epilepsy who visit the ED reported a positive view of epilepsy seizure first aid training and associated educational materials. Their feedback was then used to develop the optimized intervention presented here. Strengths and perceived barriers to successful implementation and participation, as well as the practical and psychosocial benefits, were identified. We describe the developed intervention together with the process followed. This description, while being project-specific, provides a useful template to assist in the development of interventions more generally. Ongoing evaluation will determine the effects of the training intervention on participants' behavior.

Exploring loss and replacement of loss for understanding the impacts of epilepsy onset: a qualitative investigation

Previous research identifies loss as a key concept for our understanding of the impact of chronic illness. In this in-depth qualitative study, we explored the utility of the concept of loss and loss replacement as a means of gaining a fuller understanding of the implications of a diagnosis of epilepsy for overall quality of life (QOL). Potential participants were identified from the database of a large UK-based randomized controlled trial of antiepileptic drug treatment for new-onset epilepsy and selected using purposive sampling methods. In-depth interviews were conducted with 67 people; interview material was analyzed thematically. Our findings confirm 'loss' as a key concept in understanding epilepsy impact. Participants cited profound physical and social losses, and the links between these and psychological loss were clearly articulated. Informants described two main processes via which the linked losses they experienced occurred: personal withdrawal processes and externally enforced processes. Seizure control was integral to restoring psychological well-being and a sense of normality but was only one of a number of influences moderating the degree of loss experienced following seizure onset. Our work emphasizes that people with epilepsy (PWE) require active support for their continued engagement or reengagement in roles and activities identified as central to their psychological well-being and overall QOL. Achieving this requires a multiagency approach to drive forward key strategies for reduction of the negative impacts of epilepsy and to engender a sense of normality in the context of a condition often experienced as placing the individual outside the socially determined parameters of the 'normal'.