Towards an evaluation of the effectiveness of an epilepsy nurse in primary care

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

Objectives

To (1) describe the characteristics and service use of people with established epilepsy (PWE) who attend the emergency department (ED); (2) evaluate the economic impact of PWE who attend the ED; (3) determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an epilepsy nurse specialist (ENS)-led self-management intervention plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU alone in reducing ED use and promoting well-being; (4) describe patients' views of the intervention; and (5) explore their reasons for attending the ED.

Design

Non-randomised trial with nested qualitative study.

Setting

The EDs of three inner London hospitals. The EDs each offer similar services and support a similar local population, which made a comparison of patient outcomes reasonable.

Participants

Adults diagnosed with epilepsy for ≥ 1 year were prospectively identified from the EDs by presenting symptom/discharge diagnosis. We recruited 85 of 315 patients with 44 forming the intervention group and 41 the comparison group.

Intervention

Intervention participants were offered two one-to-one outpatient sessions delivered by an ENS who aimed to optimise self-management skills and knowledge of appropriate emergency service use. The first session lasted for 45–60 minutes and the second for 30 minutes.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the number of ED visits that participants reported making over the 6 months preceding the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were visits reported at the 6-month follow-up and scores on psychosocial measures.

Results

In the year preceding recruitment, the 85 participants together made 270 ED visits. The frequency of their visits was positively skewed, with 61% having attended multiple times. The mean number of visits per participant was 3.1 [standard deviation (SD) 3.6] and the median was two (interquartile range 1–4). Mean patient service cost was £2355 (SD £2455). Compared with findings in the general epilepsy population, participants experienced more seizures and had greater anxiety, lower epilepsy knowledge and greater perceived stigma. Their outpatient care was, however, consistent with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommendations. In total, 81% of participants were retained at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, and 80% of participants offered the intervention attended. Using intention-to-treat analyses, including those adjusted for baseline differences, we found no significant effect of the intervention on ED use at the 6-month follow-up [adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 3.28] or the 12-month follow-up (adjusted IRR 1.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 5.41), nor on any psychosocial outcomes. Because they spent less time as inpatients, however, the average service cost of intervention participants over follow-up was less than that of TAU participants (adjusted difference £558, 95% CI –£2409 to £648). Lower confidence in managing epilepsy and more felt stigma at baseline best predicted more ED visits over follow-up. Interviews revealed that patients generally attended because they had no family, friend or colleague nearby who had the confidence to manage a seizure. Most participants receiving the intervention valued it, including being given information on epilepsy and an opportunity to talk about their feelings. Those reporting most ED use at baseline perceived the most benefit.

Conclusions

At baseline, > 60% of participants who had attended an ED in the previous year had reattended in the same year. In total, 50% of their health service costs were accounted for by ED use and admissions. Low confidence in their ability to manage their epilepsy and a greater sense of stigma predicted frequent attendance. The intervention did not lead to a reduction in ED use but did not cost more, partly because those receiving the intervention had shorter average hospital stays. The most common reason reported by PWE for attending an ED was the lack of someone nearby with sufficient experience of managing a seizure. Those who attended an ED frequently and received the intervention were more likely to report that the intervention helped them. Our findings on predictors of ED use clarify what causes ED use and suggest that future interventions might focus more on patients' perceptions of stigma and on their confidence in managing epilepsy. If addressed, ED visits might be reduced and efficiency savings generated.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06469947.

Funding

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 1, No. 9. See the HSDR programme website for further project information.

The contribution of British general practice to our knowledge of epilepsy and its effects on people

INTRODUCTION

British general practice is a good base for epidemiological research which is evidenced by the study of epilepsy.

SOURCES OF DATA

A comprehensive search of PubMed using various keywords for articles on epilepsy research performed in British general practice.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Studies in the setting of general practice have contributed significantly to knowledge in the field of epilepsy, especially in relation to epidemiology, studies of prognosis and treatment patterns and psychosocial aspects.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The extent to which epilepsy can be managed in general practice.

GROWING POINTS

The importance of primary care research and the importance of collaborative studies between general practice, hospital and university departments.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The effects of interventions at general practice level on seizure control, morbidity and mortality.

An exploratory study of primary care pharmacist-led epilepsy consultations

Objective

Most epilepsies are managed with anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), but medication non-adherence has been frequently reported. Satisfying patient information needs has demonstrated improved adherence. Multi-professional working has been encouraged to provide cost-effective health services by using the most appropriate healthcare professional. Research has demonstrated that pharmacist-led consultations are acceptable to patients with other medical conditions and therefore may be appropriate for patients with epilepsy. We aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a pharmacist-led epilepsy consultation (PLEC) study. This encompassed estimating the eligibility and consent rate for a PLEC study, plus the acceptability of potential intervention outcome measures and likely effects.

Methods

Eligible patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy and prescribed AEDs were invited by telephone to attend a PLEC. Baseline adherence, general mental well-being, epilepsy-related quality of life and satisfaction with information received about epilepsy medication were recorded. The intervention was a 30 min consultation to provide participants with an opportunity to ask questions related to their epilepsy therapy. Baseline data collection was repeated after 2 months.

Results

Of 106 (97.2%) consenting patients, 82 (77.4%) attended the PLEC. The 2 month follow-up questionnaire was fully completed by 50 (67.6%) participants. The number (percentage ± 95% confidence interval) of participants reporting adherent behaviour pre-PLEC was 22 (44.0 ± 13.7%) which increased to 30 (60 ± 13.6%) post-PLEC (P < 0.03, McNemar test).

Discussion

Accepting the limitations of a before-and-after study and small sample size, the findings suggest that a PLEC may improve adherence. A definitive trial is necessary to confirm the effect of a PLEC and establish the longevity and cost-effectiveness of the outcomes. Attrition of potential participants not contactable by telephone suggests the need for additional postal contact in subsequent trials. A reduction in loss to follow-up is also desirable and potentially achievable using telephone reminders.

Do epilepsy specialist nurses use a similar history-taking process as consultant neurologists in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with a first seizure?

The development of specialist nursing practice has blurred the boundaries between medicine and nursing. This mainly qualitative study compares the structure of epilepsy specialist nurse (ESN) and consultant neurologist (CN) clinical interviews at first seizure presentation and opinion on diagnosis. Twenty patients with a suspected first seizure were randomly allocated for clinical review with an ESN and then a CN, or vice versa. Clinical interviews were unstructured and audio-recorded. The ESN and CN reached an independent diagnosis for each patient. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim. Emergent themes were identified, catalogued and grouped into major thematic areas. Annotated audio recordings, medical notes and dictated clinic letters were used to validate findings. Statistical analysis of inter-rater agreement of diagnosis was evaluated using Kappa. The clinical interviews of CN and ESN were similar in structure. Differences demonstrated CNs concentrated on the prodrome to events and expressed less diagnostic uncertainty. ESNs concentrated on post-ictal recovery and used more investigations. Complete disagreement on diagnosis occurred in 5 (25%) patients. Kappa score=0.510, demonstrating a moderate level of inter rater agreement on diagnosis between the CN and ESN.

WITHDRAWN: Specialist epilepsy nurses for treating epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common serious neurological condition with a 0.5% prevalence. As a result of the perceived deficiencies and suggestions to improve the quality of care offered to people with epilepsy, two models of service provision have been suggested by researchers: specialist epilepsy out-patient clinics (as opposed to the management of patients in general neurology clinics or general medical clinics) and nurse-based liaison services between primary (GP) and secondary/tertiary (hospital-based) care.

OBJECTIVES

To overview the evidence from controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses compared to routine care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (TheCochraneLibrary Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (October 2004), GEARS, EMBASE, ECRI, Effectiveness Healthcare Bulletin, Effectiveness Matters, Bandolier, Evidence Based Purchasing, National Research Register and PsycINFO databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled and quasi-randomized trials which considered specialist epilepsy nurse interventions with standard or alternative care were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included: seizure frequency; appropriateness of medication prescribed; social or psychological functioning scores; knowledge about epilepsy scores; costs of care and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included, two based in general practice and one in a neurology centre. The population of patients differed between trials, for example one study excluded patients with learning disabilities, and one only recruited patients with a new diagnosis. In view of this heterogeneity we decided not to pool results in a meta-analysis. As yet, there is no convincing evidence that specialist epilepsy nurses improve outcomes for people with epilepsy overall. Important outcomes (eg seizure frequency, psychosocial functioning, knowledge of epilepsy, general health status, work days lost, depression and anxiety scores) show no significant improvement. There is some evidence that people who have not had an epileptic seizure in the last six months are less at risk for depression. There is also evidence that newly diagnosed patients whose knowledge about epilepsy is poor may improve their epilepsy knowledge scores after nurse intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is clearly plausible that specialist epilepsy nurses could improve quality in epilepsy care. However, there is as yet little evidence to support this assumption as the present research base is small. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses before such recommendations can be made.

Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care

BACKGROUND

Demand for primary care services has increased in developed countries due to population ageing, rising patient expectations, and reforms that shift care from hospitals to the community. At the same time, the supply of physicians is constrained and there is increasing pressure to contain costs. Shifting care from physicians to nurses is one possible response to these challenges. The expectation is that nurse-doctor substitution will reduce cost and physician workload while maintaining quality of care.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to evaluate the impact of doctor-nurse substitution in primary care on patient outcomes, process of care, and resource utilisation including cost. Patient outcomes included: morbidity; mortality; satisfaction; compliance; and preference. Process of care outcomes included: practitioner adherence to clinical guidelines; standards or quality of care; and practitioner health care activity (e.g. provision of advice). Resource utilisation was assessed by: frequency and length of consultations; return visits; prescriptions; tests and investigations; referral to other services; and direct or indirect costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched for the period 1966 to 2002: Medline; Cinahl; Bids, Embase; Social Science Citation Index; British Nursing Index; HMIC; EPOC Register; and Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Search terms specified the setting (primary care), professional (nurse), study design (randomised controlled trial, controlled before-and-after-study, interrupted time series), and subject (e.g. skill mix).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if nurses were compared to doctors providing a similar primary health care service (excluding accident and emergency services). Primary care doctors included: general practitioners, family physicians, paediatricians, general internists or geriatricians. Primary care nurses included: practice nurses, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, or advanced practice nurses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection and data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers with differences resolved through discussion. Meta-analysis was applied to outcomes for which there was adequate reporting of intervention effects from at least three randomised controlled trials. Semi-quantitative methods were used to synthesize other outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

4253 articles were screened of which 25 articles, relating to 16 studies, met our inclusion criteria. In seven studies the nurse assumed responsibility for first contact and ongoing care for all presenting patients. The outcomes investigated varied across studies so limiting the opportunity for data synthesis. In general, no appreciable differences were found between doctors and nurses in health outcomes for patients, process of care, resource utilisation or cost. In five studies the nurse assumed responsibility for first contact care for patients wanting urgent consultations during office hours or out-of-hours. Patient health outcomes were similar for nurses and doctors but patient satisfaction was higher with nurse-led care. Nurses tended to provide longer consultations, give more information to patients and recall patients more frequently than did doctors. The impact on physician workload and direct cost of care was variable. In four studies the nurse took responsibility for the ongoing management of patients with particular chronic conditions. The outcomes investigated varied across studies so limiting the opportunity for data synthesis. In general, no appreciable differences were found between doctors and nurses in health outcomes for patients, process of care, resource utilisation or cost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that appropriately trained nurses can produce as high quality care as primary care doctors and achieve as good health outcomes for patients. However, this conclusion should be viewed with caution given that only one study was powered to assess equivalence of care, many studies had methodological limitations, and patient follow-up was generally 12 months or less. While doctor-nurse substitution has the potential to reduce doctors' workload and direct healthcare costs, achieving such reductions depends on the particular context of care. Doctors' workload may remain unchanged either because nurses are deployed to meet previously unmet patient need or because nurses generate demand for care where previously there was none. Savings in cost depend on the magnitude of the salary differential between doctors and nurses, and may be offset by the lower productivity of nurses compared to doctors.

How can a nurse intervention help people with newly diagnosed epilepsy? A qualitative study of patients' views

The aim was to describe the patients' views of the challenges posed by a new diagnosis of epilepsy and their assessment of a nurse intervention. Neurologists in South-East England referred patients into the study. Following a trial of a nurse intervention a subgroup of patients were purposefully identified for in depth interviews. Transcriptions of tape-recorded interviews were analysed using qualitative methodology. We found that younger people with epilepsy seemed to experience more trouble with driving, jobs and managing their lives in the context of new epilepsy, while older people saw epilepsy as just another illness to cope with. Patients reported difficulty in remembering what their doctors told them which they attributed partly to lack of time available in the consultation. They valued the time, and the technique of probing with explanations used by the nurse. The nurse intervention was seen as useful in making sense of symptoms, tests, risk management, and driving regulations and in helping manage their medicine taking. We conclude that people with newly diagnosed epilepsy face different challenges, some of which are related to their age at diagnosis. Patients reported help from the nurse with understanding the diagnosis, tests, risk management and taking their medication. Follow-up is necessary to measure behavioural effects on self-management in the long-run.

The epilepsy nurse specialist at a tertiary care hospital-improving the interface between primary and tertiary care

Recent literature suggests that access to an epilepsy nurse specialist (ENS) may help improve patients understanding and management of their condition and in doing so may decrease morbidity and mortality. This paper describes the role of the ENS at a large tertiary referral epilepsy centre, the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (NHNN) in supporting patients with refractory epilepsy in the hospital and community. Approximately 300 patients were referred to the ENS in the first 6 months of the service. A questionnaire was posted to 193 patients, 69% responded. Most patients had multiple seizures each month, took polytherapy, underwent frequent antiepileptic drug (AED) dose changes and often experienced drug side effects. Sixty percent of patients contacted the ENS for urgent medical advice. Important aspects of the service were access by telephone to medication advice, information, support and adequate time to discuss issues. The ENS improved continuity of, and accessibility to, care for patients, has become a key member of the multidisciplinary epilepsy team and has freed up scarce medical time.

What do patients want and get from a primary care epilepsy specialist nurse service?

PURPOSE

To assess what patients want and get from a primary care epilepsy specialist nurse service, and whether this matches their expectations and self-defined needs.

METHODS

A qualitative study nested within a controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a primary care epilepsy specialist nurse service in Bristol, UK. Twelve patients who had had at least one seizure in the previous year were purposely selected from the trial population for an in-depth interview. Interviews were audiotape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcribed text was methodically coded and themes were identified using the method of constant comparison.

RESULTS

Not all informants wanted to see the epilepsy nurse as they felt their epilepsy was well controlled and thus they did not see the need for care or attention. Those that chose to use the nurse service did so as they wanted information on epilepsy or better control of their seizures. The epilepsy nurse was able to provide them with the information they wanted but was not able to improve their seizure control. Informants felt able to communicate effectively with the nurse and they valued the information and advice received. They were unable to get this kind of communication and empathy from other clinicians. Informants generally praised the nurse service but were aware that it was unlikely to improve the control of their seizures. Most accepted this.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective communication with clinicians is as much, if not more of a priority for patients with epilepsy, than is controlling the clinical manifestations of their condition.

Systematic reviews of specialist epilepsy services

BACKGROUND

Concern has been expressed over UK epilepsy service standards but the most clinically effective model of care is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the current evidence on specialist epilepsy clinics compared to general neurology clinics and specialist epilepsy nurses compared to usual care.

METHODS

Medline, Psychlit, Embase, Healthplan, GEARS, BIDS ISI, UKCHHO, international HTA websites, InterTASC databases and The Cochrane Library were searched to September 1999. Any studies comparing specialist epilepsy clinics or nurses to generalist services or usual care, reporting physical health, costs or generic quality-of-life outcomes were included. Two people independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data independently. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) quality was assessed by Jadad score and other studies qualitatively by the likelihood of bias.

RESULTS

Findings were one RCT and two other studies on epilepsy clinics and four RCTs and a controlled trial on epilepsy nurses. Data synthesis was inappropriate. Epilepsy clinics showed no evidence of reduced seizure frequency or severity, no quality-of-life information and were more expensive. Epilepsy nurse services showed no evidence of reduced seizure frequency or severity, no effect on quality-of-life but were less expensive.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the superiority of any particular care model for producing better health outcomes.

How can a nurse intervention help people with newly diagnosed epilepsy? A qualitative study (of patients' views)

The aim was to describe the patients' views of the challenges posed by a new diagnosis of epilepsy and their assessment of a nurse intervention. Neurologists in South-East England referred patients into the study. Following a trial of a nurse intervention a subgroup of patients were purposefully identified for in-depth interviews. Transcriptions of tape-recorded interviews were analysed using qualitative methodology. We found that younger people with epilepsy seemed to experience more trouble with driving, jobs and managing their lives in the context of new epilepsy, while older people saw epilepsy as just another illness to cope with. Patients reported difficulty in remembering what their doctors told them which they attributed partly to lack of time available in the consultation. They valued the time, and the technique of probing with explanations used by the nurse. The nurse intervention was seen as useful in making sense of symptoms, tests, risk management, and driving regulations and in helping manage their medicine taking. We conclude that people with newly diagnosed epilepsy face different challenges, some of which are related to their age at diagnosis. Patients reported help from the nurse with understanding the diagnosis, tests, risk management and taking their medication. Follow-up is necessary to measure behavioural effects on self-management in the long run.

A systematic overview--a decade of research'. The information and counselling needs of people with epilepsy

This paper explores the background to epilepsy in terms of medical impact and psychosocial effects. The argument that information and counselling may be central to the person with epilepsy is explored. The evidence from primary research published between 1990 and 2000 investigating the information and counselling needs of people with epilepsy is appraised and synthesized. This paper seeks to answer the following questions: What are the information and counselling needs of people with epilepsy? What are the preferred formats, timing and delivery of information and counselling? What are the outcomes of information giving and counselling for people with epilepsy? The review suggests that there are unmet needs for personal and general information about epilepsy which may include individual or group education and counselling. Information related to gaining control for people with epilepsy and targeted public education may contribute to improved quality of life for people with epilepsy. Information is required which is individually relevant and could be delivered in small groups or as part of an individual counselling service. Specialist epilepsy clinics and specialist nurses can improve patient knowledge and communication and provide an effective and high quality service for people with epilepsy.

The epilepsy nurse specialist--expendable handmaiden or essential colleague?

The benefits of a specialist epilepsy nurse in the management of people with epilepsy are still in question. Evidence from controlled clinical trials suggests that patients supported by a nurse specialist are well informed and have a high degree of satisfaction. However, no significant effect on health status or the number of seizures has been yet demonstrated, although this is not the primary function of most epilepsy specialist nurses. The recent International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) British Branch meeting in Liverpool (April 2001) dedicated a one-day symposium to epilepsy nursing including a debate on the effectiveness of the epilepsy specialist nursewarm fuzzy feeling or evidence based?'. Although it was agreed that evidence-based research is limited, the case studies and data presented, throughout the symposium, highlighted the varying role of the epilepsy specialist nurse in supporting both the specialist physician in epilepsy care, the non-specialist physician and the primary care physician in patient communication. This paper provides an overview of the presentations given at the symposium, including those on nursing research and publishing.

Specialist epilepsy nurses for treating epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition after stroke, with a 0.5 per cent prevalence, and a two to three per cent life time risk of being given a diagnosis of epilepsy in the developed world. As a result of the perceived deficiencies and suggestions to improve the quality of care offered to people with epilepsy, two models of service provision have been suggested by researchers: specialist epilepsy out-patient clinics (as opposed to the management of patients in general neurology clinics or general medical clinics) and nurse-based liaison services between primary (GP) and secondary/tertiary (hospital based) care.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to overview the evidence from controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses compared to routine care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE, GEARS, BIDS (EMBASE=Excepta Medica), ECRI, Effectiveness Healthcare Bulletin, Effectiveness Matters, Bandolier, Evidence Based Purchasing, National Research Register, Vignettes and expert panels from Standing Group on Health Technology Assessment, PsycLit database, World Wide Web sites and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled and quasi-randomized trials which considered specialist epilepsy nurse interventions with standard or alternative care were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed: (a) seizure frequency (b) appropriateness of medication prescribed (c) social or psychological functioning scores (d) knowledge about epilepsy scores (e) objective measures of general health status/quality of life (f) patients' reports of information received (g) number of days spent on sick leave/missing school and employment status (h) costs of care (i) adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included, two based in general practice and one in a neurology centre. The population of patients differed between trials, for example one study excluded patients with learning disabilities, and one only recruited patients with a new diagnosis. In view of this heterogeneity we decided not to pool results in a meta-analysis. As yet, there is no convincing evidence that specialist epilepsy nurses improve outcomes for people with epilepsy overall. Important outcomes (e.g. seizure frequency, psychosocial functioning, knowledge of epilepsy, general health status, work days lost, depression and anxiety scores) show no significant improvement. There is some evidence that those patients who have not had an epileptic seizure in the last six months are less at risk for depression. There is also evidence that newly diagnosed patients whose knowledge about epilepsy is poor may improve their epilepsy knowledge scores after nurse intervention.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

It is clearly plausible that specialist epilepsy nurses could improve quality in epilepsy care. However, there is as yet little evidence to support this assumption as the present research base is small. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses before such recommendations can be made.

Improving the epilepsy service: the role of the specialist nurse

There is currently a wide variation in the level of service provided for patients with epilepsy across the UK. Evidence is becoming available to suggest that improvements in local service provision may be achieved through the intervention of a specialist nurse. Using practical examples, this article explores the roles of the epilepsy specialist nurse, and examines how they may benefit patients and improve services. Functions such as liaison, patient assessment and management, counselling, provision of information, education, and audit are considered. It is hoped that the improved co-ordination and management of epilepsy services, that is achieved through specialist nurse intervention, will lead to improved patient outcomes and increased cost-effectiveness.

General-practice-based nurse specialists-taking a lead in improving the care of people with epilepsy

Epilepsy is almost as common as diabetes and some 750 people with epilepsy die suddenly and prematurely each year. Unfortunately, the management of epilepsy has been much neglected and services often remain fragmented and difficult for patients to understand. We employed a nurse specialist in epilepsy to work with practice nurses in a group of general practices to promote better care, to make patients aware of sources of help and support, and to provide information about issues such as driving, employment and pregnancy. Over 70% of patients with epilepsy attended 'clinics' run by the specialist nurse and many previously unidentified problems were successfully resolved-including misdiagnosis, over-medication and lack of awareness of the side-effects of antiepileptic drugs. Nurse specialists in epilepsy, working with groups of general practices but in collaboration with hospital specialists and voluntary organizations, can take a lead role in facilitating joint working between all those involved in service provision, in training practice nurses and others in the special needs of people with epilepsy and in providing support in hospital clinics.

The effect of specially trained epilepsy nurses in primary care: a review

The paper describes the evidence on potential effects of specially trained nurses working in primary care for patients with epilepsy. The method used was a search and review of evidence published from 1992 to 1999. It was found that where nurses have been trained in epilepsy care, there is good evidence that it is feasible for them to set up and run clinics in family practice. Where this has been undertaken, there is level I evidence that this is acceptable and satisfactory to patients. Where clinics have been set up in primary care, there is level I evidence that there has been an increase in the information and advice recorded as being provided to patients. Structured checklists may additionally prompt service providers to increase the level of information provided to patients, and this hypothesis is being tested currently. In conclusion, epilepsy nurses can set up clinics for patients in primary care which are well attended, satisfy patients, and which are associated with better recording of advice given. There is little published evidence on outcome as opposed to process measures. Trials with adequate sample size and long-term follow-up are necessary to identify whether nurse monitoring with advice and counselling can benefit patients in terms of epilepsy self-management in the long run.

Epilepsy and learning disabilities--a challenge for the next millennium?

People with learning disabilities often have seizures in addition to other disorders. Precise diagnosis may be difficult, but accuracy can be improved using electroencephalographic and video investigations. Following the establishment of a diagnosis of epilepsy, individually tailored care is necessary taking into account other health, behavioural and therapeutic issues. Neuroimaging may indicate a need for surgery which should not be automatically excluded as a treatment option. Rational antiepileptic drug use is advised, with emphasis upon the newer agents due to their better tolerance and ease of use. A programme of regular review will prevent over-medicating. Drug therapy may be withdrawn in a seizure-free patient. Realistic goals should be established for each individual coupled with an optimistic approach to care. However, future developments require a solid evidence base combined with rationality in all aspects of management. The community learning disability epilepsy nurse specialist is the key health-care professional who can ensure that a learning disabled individual with epilepsy is able to take full advantage of all available services. Education, closer collaboration and the mutual recognition of skills will ensure more cohesive and comprehensive care for this disadvantaged patient population.