Promoting faster pathways to surgery: a clinical audit of patients with refractory epilepsy

Virginia Mumford, Frances Rapport, Patti Shih, Rebecca Mitchell, Andrew Bleasel, Armin Nikpour, Geoffrey Herkes, Amy MacRae, Melissa Bartley, Sanjyot Vagholkar, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Individuals with epilepsy who cannot be adequately controlled with anti-epileptic drugs, refractory epilepsy, may be suitable for surgical treatment following detailed assessment. This is a complex process and there are concerns over delays in referring refractory epilepsy patients for surgery and subsequent treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the different patient pathways, referral and surgical timeframes, and surgical and medical treatment options for refractory epilepsy patients referred to two Tertiary Epilepsy Clinics in New South Wales, Australia. Methods: Clinical records were reviewed for 50 patients attending the two clinics, in two large teaching hospitals (25 in Clinic 1; 25 in Clinic 2. A purpose-designed audit tool collected detailed aspects of outpatient consultations and treatment. Patients with refractory epilepsy with their first appointment in 2014 were reviewed for up to six visits until the end of 2016. Data collection included: patient demographics, type of epilepsy, drug management, and assessment for surgery. Outcomes included: decisions regarding surgical and/or medical management, and seizure status following surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures to assess anxiety and depression were collected in Clinic 1 only. Results: Patient mean age was 38.3 years (SD 13.4), the mean years since diagnosis was 17.3 years (SD 9.8), and 88.0% of patients had a main diagnosis of focal epilepsy. Patients were taking an average of 2.3 (SD 0.9) anti-epileptic drugs at the first clinic visit. A total of 17 (34.0%) patients were referred to the surgical team and 11 (22.0%) underwent a neuro-surgical procedure. The average waiting time between visit 1 to surgical referral was 38.8 weeks (SD 25.1), and between visit 1 and the first post-operative visit was 55.8 weeks (SD 25.0). Conclusion: The findings confirm international data showing significant waiting times between diagnosis of epilepsy and referral to specialist clinics for surgical assessment and highlight different approaches in each clinic in terms of visit numbers and recorded activities. A standardised pathway and data collection, including patient-reported outcome measures, would provide better evidence for whether promoting earlier referral and assessment for surgery improves the lives of this disease group.

LanguageEnglish
Article number29
Pages1-9
Number of pages9
JournalBMC neurology
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Feb 2019

Fingerprint

Clinical Audit
Epilepsy
Referral and Consultation
South Australia
New South Wales
Partial Epilepsy
Therapeutics
Ambulatory Care
Teaching Hospitals
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Appointments and Schedules
Seizures
Outpatients
Anxiety
Demography
Depression

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2019. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

  • Clinical audit
  • Neurosurgery
  • Patient pathways
  • Refractory epilepsy
  • Surgical assessment

Cite this

@article{fc920da54c8e48849b7ea568a6d8db9a,
title = "Promoting faster pathways to surgery: a clinical audit of patients with refractory epilepsy",
abstract = "Background: Individuals with epilepsy who cannot be adequately controlled with anti-epileptic drugs, refractory epilepsy, may be suitable for surgical treatment following detailed assessment. This is a complex process and there are concerns over delays in referring refractory epilepsy patients for surgery and subsequent treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the different patient pathways, referral and surgical timeframes, and surgical and medical treatment options for refractory epilepsy patients referred to two Tertiary Epilepsy Clinics in New South Wales, Australia. Methods: Clinical records were reviewed for 50 patients attending the two clinics, in two large teaching hospitals (25 in Clinic 1; 25 in Clinic 2. A purpose-designed audit tool collected detailed aspects of outpatient consultations and treatment. Patients with refractory epilepsy with their first appointment in 2014 were reviewed for up to six visits until the end of 2016. Data collection included: patient demographics, type of epilepsy, drug management, and assessment for surgery. Outcomes included: decisions regarding surgical and/or medical management, and seizure status following surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures to assess anxiety and depression were collected in Clinic 1 only. Results: Patient mean age was 38.3 years (SD 13.4), the mean years since diagnosis was 17.3 years (SD 9.8), and 88.0{\%} of patients had a main diagnosis of focal epilepsy. Patients were taking an average of 2.3 (SD 0.9) anti-epileptic drugs at the first clinic visit. A total of 17 (34.0{\%}) patients were referred to the surgical team and 11 (22.0{\%}) underwent a neuro-surgical procedure. The average waiting time between visit 1 to surgical referral was 38.8 weeks (SD 25.1), and between visit 1 and the first post-operative visit was 55.8 weeks (SD 25.0). Conclusion: The findings confirm international data showing significant waiting times between diagnosis of epilepsy and referral to specialist clinics for surgical assessment and highlight different approaches in each clinic in terms of visit numbers and recorded activities. A standardised pathway and data collection, including patient-reported outcome measures, would provide better evidence for whether promoting earlier referral and assessment for surgery improves the lives of this disease group.",
keywords = "Clinical audit, Neurosurgery, Patient pathways, Refractory epilepsy, Surgical assessment",
author = "Virginia Mumford and Frances Rapport and Patti Shih and Rebecca Mitchell and Andrew Bleasel and Armin Nikpour and Geoffrey Herkes and Amy MacRae and Melissa Bartley and Sanjyot Vagholkar and Jeffrey Braithwaite",
note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2019. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1186/s12883-019-1255-0",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "BMC neurology",
issn = "1471-2377",
publisher = "Springer, Springer Nature",
number = "1",

}

Promoting faster pathways to surgery : a clinical audit of patients with refractory epilepsy. / Mumford, Virginia; Rapport, Frances; Shih, Patti; Mitchell, Rebecca; Bleasel, Andrew; Nikpour, Armin; Herkes, Geoffrey; MacRae, Amy; Bartley, Melissa; Vagholkar, Sanjyot; Braithwaite, Jeffrey.

In: BMC neurology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 29, 19.02.2019, p. 1-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Promoting faster pathways to surgery

T2 - BMC neurology

AU - Mumford, Virginia

AU - Rapport, Frances

AU - Shih, Patti

AU - Mitchell, Rebecca

AU - Bleasel, Andrew

AU - Nikpour, Armin

AU - Herkes, Geoffrey

AU - MacRae, Amy

AU - Bartley, Melissa

AU - Vagholkar, Sanjyot

AU - Braithwaite, Jeffrey

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2019. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2019/2/19

Y1 - 2019/2/19

N2 - Background: Individuals with epilepsy who cannot be adequately controlled with anti-epileptic drugs, refractory epilepsy, may be suitable for surgical treatment following detailed assessment. This is a complex process and there are concerns over delays in referring refractory epilepsy patients for surgery and subsequent treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the different patient pathways, referral and surgical timeframes, and surgical and medical treatment options for refractory epilepsy patients referred to two Tertiary Epilepsy Clinics in New South Wales, Australia. Methods: Clinical records were reviewed for 50 patients attending the two clinics, in two large teaching hospitals (25 in Clinic 1; 25 in Clinic 2. A purpose-designed audit tool collected detailed aspects of outpatient consultations and treatment. Patients with refractory epilepsy with their first appointment in 2014 were reviewed for up to six visits until the end of 2016. Data collection included: patient demographics, type of epilepsy, drug management, and assessment for surgery. Outcomes included: decisions regarding surgical and/or medical management, and seizure status following surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures to assess anxiety and depression were collected in Clinic 1 only. Results: Patient mean age was 38.3 years (SD 13.4), the mean years since diagnosis was 17.3 years (SD 9.8), and 88.0% of patients had a main diagnosis of focal epilepsy. Patients were taking an average of 2.3 (SD 0.9) anti-epileptic drugs at the first clinic visit. A total of 17 (34.0%) patients were referred to the surgical team and 11 (22.0%) underwent a neuro-surgical procedure. The average waiting time between visit 1 to surgical referral was 38.8 weeks (SD 25.1), and between visit 1 and the first post-operative visit was 55.8 weeks (SD 25.0). Conclusion: The findings confirm international data showing significant waiting times between diagnosis of epilepsy and referral to specialist clinics for surgical assessment and highlight different approaches in each clinic in terms of visit numbers and recorded activities. A standardised pathway and data collection, including patient-reported outcome measures, would provide better evidence for whether promoting earlier referral and assessment for surgery improves the lives of this disease group.

AB - Background: Individuals with epilepsy who cannot be adequately controlled with anti-epileptic drugs, refractory epilepsy, may be suitable for surgical treatment following detailed assessment. This is a complex process and there are concerns over delays in referring refractory epilepsy patients for surgery and subsequent treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the different patient pathways, referral and surgical timeframes, and surgical and medical treatment options for refractory epilepsy patients referred to two Tertiary Epilepsy Clinics in New South Wales, Australia. Methods: Clinical records were reviewed for 50 patients attending the two clinics, in two large teaching hospitals (25 in Clinic 1; 25 in Clinic 2. A purpose-designed audit tool collected detailed aspects of outpatient consultations and treatment. Patients with refractory epilepsy with their first appointment in 2014 were reviewed for up to six visits until the end of 2016. Data collection included: patient demographics, type of epilepsy, drug management, and assessment for surgery. Outcomes included: decisions regarding surgical and/or medical management, and seizure status following surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures to assess anxiety and depression were collected in Clinic 1 only. Results: Patient mean age was 38.3 years (SD 13.4), the mean years since diagnosis was 17.3 years (SD 9.8), and 88.0% of patients had a main diagnosis of focal epilepsy. Patients were taking an average of 2.3 (SD 0.9) anti-epileptic drugs at the first clinic visit. A total of 17 (34.0%) patients were referred to the surgical team and 11 (22.0%) underwent a neuro-surgical procedure. The average waiting time between visit 1 to surgical referral was 38.8 weeks (SD 25.1), and between visit 1 and the first post-operative visit was 55.8 weeks (SD 25.0). Conclusion: The findings confirm international data showing significant waiting times between diagnosis of epilepsy and referral to specialist clinics for surgical assessment and highlight different approaches in each clinic in terms of visit numbers and recorded activities. A standardised pathway and data collection, including patient-reported outcome measures, would provide better evidence for whether promoting earlier referral and assessment for surgery improves the lives of this disease group.

KW - Clinical audit

KW - Neurosurgery

KW - Patient pathways

KW - Refractory epilepsy

KW - Surgical assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061867688&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12883-019-1255-0

DO - 10.1186/s12883-019-1255-0

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - BMC neurology

JF - BMC neurology

SN - 1471-2377

IS - 1

M1 - 29

ER -