Feasibility and effects of nurse run clinics for patients with epilepsy in general practice: randomised controlled trial. Epilepsy Care Evaluation Group

Strategies for improving adherence to antiepileptic drug treatment in people with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Poor adherence to antiepileptic medication is associated with increased mortality, morbidity and healthcare costs. In this review, we focus on interventions designed and tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs to assist people with adherence to antiepileptic medication. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011, and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving adherence to antiepileptic medication in adults and children with epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 18 February 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO. CRS Web includes RCTs or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), CENTRAL, and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs of adherence-enhancing interventions aimed at people with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy (as defined in individual studies), of any age and treated with antiepileptic drugs in a primary care, outpatient or other community setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently assessed lists of potentially relevant citations and abstracts. At least two review authors independently extracted data and performed a quality assessment of each study according to the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We graded the level of evidence for each outcome according to GRADE. The studies differed widely according to the type of intervention and measures of adherence; therefore combining data was not appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies reporting data on 2832 participants. Thirteen studies targeted adults with epilepsy, one study included participants of all ages, one study included participants older than two years, one recruited pediatric patients aged between 1 month to 15 years, one study targeted caregivers of children with epilepsy, one targeted adolescents and caregivers, and two studies targeted families of children with epilepsy. We identified three ongoing studies. Follow-up time was generally short in most studies, ranging from 1 to 12 months. The studies examined three main types of interventions: educational interventions, behavioural interventions and mixed interventions. All but three studies compared treatment with usual care or 'no intervention'. Due to heterogeneity between studies in terms of interventions, methods used to measure adherence and the way the studies were reported, we did not pool the results and these findings were inappropriate to be included in a meta-analysis. Education and counselling of participants with epilepsy had mixed success (moderate-certainty evidence). Behavioural interventions such as the use of intensive reminders provided more favourable effects on adherence (moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on adherence to antiepileptic drugs described by studies of mixed interventions showed improved adherence in the intervention groups compared to the control groups (high-certainty evidence). Eleven studies described seizure frequency or seizure severity or both, with four of them, reporting improved adherence and decreased seizure frequency in the intervention groups (moderate-certainty evidence). Findings related to self-efficacy and quality of life were mixed, with no clear pattern across types of intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions such as intensive reminders and the use of mixed interventions demonstrate some positive results, however, we need more reliable evidence on their efficacy, derived from carefully-designed RCTs before we can draw a firm conclusion. None of the newly included studies have provided additional information that would lead to significant changes in our conclusions.

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.

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.

Rising to the challenge: Epilepsy specialist nurses as leaders of service improvements and change (SENsE study)

PURPOSE

To report the leadership role and change activities of epilepsy specialist nurses (ESNs) in Ireland; findings from the SENsE study.

METHOD

A mixed methods study design was used, involving 12 epilepsy specialist nurses working in five units in Ireland, 24multidisciplinary team members working with them, and 35 people with epilepsy and their family members. Data were collected using individual and focus group interviews, observation and documentary analysis.

RESULTS

Five key areas in which ESNs demonstrated leading on the change agenda were identified. These included: Initiating new clinical practice developments; Building capability within the multidisciplinary team; Developing education programmes and resources for people with epilepsy, family and the public; Exerting influence through membership of committees and lobbying; and Advancing the ESN role.

CONCLUSION

Though the epilepsy specialist nurse role was first established in the UK in 1988, much of the literature that discusses or describes the ESN role is founded on anecdotal evidence, or focusses on their clinical expertise. Findings from this study provide empirical evidence that the ESNs were involved as key players in leading changes within the services, in the education of others, and the continuous advancement of epilepsy care.

Patients with epilepsy care experiences: Comparison between services with and without an epilepsy specialist nurse

The aim of this study was to determine whether there were differences in experiences of care, satisfaction with care and quality of life between those who were in receipt of care from a service with an epilepsy specialist nurse (ESN) and those who were receiving care from a service that did not include an ESN. A comparative design was used, which involved the completion of a confidential, self-completed survey. The survey was administered to a nonprobability convenience sample of patients with epilepsy who were attending services with an ESN (n = 244) and services where the treatment team did not include an ESN (n = 261) from each of the four health areas in Ireland. This study found that, in comparison to people with epilepsy (PWE) who attended a service without an ESN, PWE who attended a service with an ESN reported receiving greater amount of information, were more involved in their care, perceived care to be better coordinated, and had greater confidence in the information provided and greater comfort in discussing issues with an ESN. They also reported higher rates of satisfaction with the emotional and practical support offered. Thus, it may be concluded that models of care involving the input of ESNs enhance the quality of epilepsy care and care processes. The findings also emphasize the need to have an ESN as part of the multidisciplinary team.

Strategies for improving adherence to antiepileptic drug treatment in people with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Poor adherence to antiepileptic medication is associated with increased mortality, morbidity and healthcare costs. In this review, we focus on interventions designed and tested in randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials to assist people with adherence to antiepileptic medication. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in the Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving adherence to antiepileptic medication in adults and children with epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, on 4 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 4 February 2016), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost 1937 to 4 February 2016), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost 1887 to 4 February 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of adherence-enhancing interventions aimed at people with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy (as defined in individual studies), of any age and treated with antiepileptic drugs in a primary care, outpatient or other community setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently assessed lists of potentially relevant citations and abstracts. At least two review authors independently extracted data and performed quality assessment of each study according to the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We graded the level of evidence for each outcome according to the GRADE working group scale.The studies differed widely according to the type of intervention and measures of adherence; therefore combining data was not appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies reporting data on 1642 participants (intervention = 833, control = 809). Eight studies targeted adults with epilepsy, one study included participants of all ages, one study included participants older than two years, one study targeted caregivers of children with epilepsy, and one study targeted families of children with epilepsy. We identified six ongoing trials. Follow-up time was generally short in most trials, ranging from one to 12 months. The trials examined three main types of interventions: educational interventions, behavioural interventions and mixed interventions. All studies compared treatment versus usual care or 'no intervention', except for two studies. Due to heterogeneity between studies in terms of interventions, methods used to measure adherence and the way the studies were reported, we did not pool the results and these findings were inappropriate to be included in a meta-analysis. Education and counselling of participants with epilepsy resulted in mixed success (moderate-quality evidence). Behavioural interventions such as use of intensive reminders provided more favourable effects on adherence (moderate-quality evidence). The effect on adherence to antiepileptic drugs described by studies of mixed interventions showed improved adherence in the intervention groups compared to the control groups (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions such as intensive reminders and the use of mixed interventions demonstrate some positive results; however, we need more reliable evidence on their efficacy, derived from carefully-designed randomised controlled trials before we can draw a firm conclusion. Since the last version of this review, none of the new relevant studies have provided additional information that would lead to significant changes in our conclusions. This current update includes 12 studies, of which six came from the latest searches.

Nurse-led care: The importance of management support

The focus of this paper is the importance of proper management planning and support to underpin the provision of nurse-led care. The author's record of research in this field has left her with a lasting impression that nurse-led services often fail to reach their full potential, at least in part because of inadequate management.

The main body of the paper consists of a brief account of a Department of Health-funded project, Exploring New Roles in Practice (ENRiP). In this three-stage study, members of the teams undertook a mapping exercise in a 20% sample of acute trusts throughout England to identify the emerging range and purpose of new roles for nurses and members of the professions allied to medicine (PAMs). The resulting database provided the sampling frame for 32 case studies to clarify the range of issues relating to the introduction of new roles. The database in its entirety also provided the population for a survey designed to establish the generalisability of the conclusions emerging from Stages One and Two. The research findings provided evidence on which to base a guidance document encapsulating the lessons learned during the project. The implications of its findings for management of nurse-led services are discussed and compared with advice given by the author in 1995 in the report Catching the Tide.

Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Researchers have criticised epilepsy care for adults for its lack of impact, stimulating the development of various service models and strategies to respond to perceived inadequacies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention beyond that of usual care in adults with epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (1988 to June 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2013) and CINAHL (1937 to December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group, and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted all data, and assessed the quality of all included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review included 18 different studies of 16 separate interventions, which we classified into seven distinct groups. Most of the studies have methodological weaknesses, and many results from other analyses within studies need to be interpreted with caution because of study limitations. Consequently, there is currently limited evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and quality of life in people with epilepsy. It was not possible to combine study results in a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, study populations, interventions and time scales across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two intervention types, the specialist epilepsy nurse and self management education, have some evidence of benefit. However, we did not find clear evidence that other service models substantially improve outcomes for adults with epilepsy. It is also possible that benefits are situation specific and may not apply to other settings. These studies included only a small number of service providers whose individual competence or expertise may have had a significant impact on outcomes. At present it is not possible to advocate any single model of service provision.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a nurse led self-management intervention to reduce emergency visits by people with epilepsy

People with chronic epilepsy (PWE) often make costly, and clinically unnecessary emergency department (ED) visits. Some do it frequently. No studies have examined interventions to reduce them. An intervention delivered by an epilepsy nurse specialist (ENS) might reduce visits. The rationale is it may optimize patients' self-management skills and knowledge of appropriate ED use. We examined such an intervention's clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Eighty-five adults with epilepsy were recruited from three London EDs with similar catchment populations. Forty-one PWE recruited from two EDs received treatment-as-usual (TAU) and formed the comparison group. The remaining 44 PWE were recruited from the ED of a hospital that had implemented a new ENS service for PWE attending ED. These participants formed the intervention group. They were offered 2 one-to-one sessions with an ENS, plus TAU. Participants completed questionnaires on health service use and psychosocial well-being at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-up. Covariates were identified and adjustments made. Sixty-nine (81%) participants were retained at follow-up. No significant effect of the intervention on ED visits at 12 months or on other outcomes was found. However, due to less time as inpatients, the average service cost for intervention participants over follow-up was less than for TAU participants' (adjusted difference £558, 95% CI, -£2409, £648). Covariates most predictive of subsequent ED visits were patients' baseline feelings of stigmatization due to epilepsy and low confidence in managing epilepsy. The intervention did not lead to a reduction in ED use, but did not cost more, partly because those receiving the intervention had shorter hospital admissions. Our findings on long-term ED predictors clarifies what causes ED use, and suggests 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.

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.

Addressing chronic and complex conditions: what evidence is there regarding the role primary healthcare nurses can play?

Primary healthcare services in Australia need to respond to the needs of an ageing population and the rising prevalence of chronic and complex conditions in that population. This paper reports on the results of a comprehensive Australian and international literature review on nurse-led and nurse-involved primary healthcare interventions with a particular focus on those serving people with chronic and complex conditions and hard to reach populations. The key question this review addresses is: what role can nurses play in primary healthcare to manage people with chronic and complex conditions? International evidence demonstrates that nurses working in primary care provide effective care, have high patient satisfaction and patients are more likely to comply with nurse instructions than general practitioner instructions. Nurses can provide care equivalent to doctors within their scope of practice but have longer consultations. Lifestyle interventions provided by nurses have been shown to be effective for cardiac care, diabetes care, smoking cessation and obesity. The nursing workforce can provide appropriate, cost-effective and high-quality primary healthcare within their scope of practice. What is known about the topic? The prevalence of chronic disease worldwide is increasing due to our lifestyles and ageing populations combined with our extended lifespans. People living in rural and remote areas have higher rates of disease and injury, and poorer access to healthcare. In particular, many older people suffer multiple chronic and complex conditions that require significant clinical management. Nurses are playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of primary healthcare worldwide and international evidence demonstrates that nurses can provide equivalent care to doctors within their scope of practice but have longer consultations. What does this paper add? There is clear international evidence that nurses can play a more significant role in supporting preventive activities and addressing the needs of an ageing population with chronic and complex conditions. In contrast with earlier evidence, recent evidence suggests that nurses may provide the most cost-effective care. What are the implications for practitioners? Adequately prepared nurses can provide a range of effective and cost-effective primary healthcare services in chronic disease management. Studies report that patients are satisfied with nursing care. Nurses should be utilised to their full scope of practice to provide ongoing care to these populations.

Evidence-based models of care for people with epilepsy

Advances in medical science and technology, together with improved medical and nursing care, are continuously improving health outcomes in chronic illness, including epilepsy. The consequent increasing diagnostic and therapeutic complexity is placing a burgeoning strain on health care systems. In response, an international move to transform chronic disease management (CDM) aims to optimize the quality and safety of care while containing health care costs. CDM models recommend: integration of care across organizational boundaries that is supported with information and communication technology; patient self-management; and guideline implementation to promote standardized care. Evidence of the effectiveness of CDM models in epilepsy care is presented in this review article.

Potential roles of the pharmacist in chronic pain management: a multidisciplinary perspective in primary care

Patients in the community with chronic pain may have poor pain control and use both prescribed and alternative therapies, often inappropriately, to try to optimise pain relief. They may benefit from management by a multidisciplinary primary care team involving a pharmacist. This study used postal questionnaires to determine community pharmacists' attitudes to involvement in pain management and the perceptions of general practitioners and physiotherapists of the current and potential roles of the pharmacist within a chronic pain care team. The three professions' views on factors which could influence chronic pain management were also determined. Sixty-three GPs (63 per cent), 59 community pharmacists (59 per cent) and 33 physiotherapists (66 per cent) responded. None of the pharmacists was currently involved in chronic pain management, but 58 (98 per cent) wanted to develop such a role, especially within pain clinics. Pharmacists and physiotherapists were more likely than GPs to identify that limited opportunity for personal involvement and expertise within a pain team reduced the likelihood of achieving optimal chronic pain management. Only 17 of the GPs had an established multidisciplinary pain care team; two of these had pharmacist involvement. All GPs and physiotherapists agreed that pharmacists had an important role to play in chronic pain management, particularly in the provision of drug information to patients and medication review.

Strategies for improving adherence to antiepileptic drug treatment in patients with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Poor adherence to antiepileptic medications is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. In this review we focus on interventions designed to assist patients with adherence to antiepileptic medications.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving adherence to antiepileptic medications in adults and children with epilepsy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (24 June 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2) and electronic databases: MEDLINE (OVID) (1950 to June 2010); EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 2010 Week 24); CINAHL (1982 to June 2010) and PsycINFO (22 June 2010), and the reference lists of relevant articles. 

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of adherence-enhancing interventions aimed at patients with clinical diagnosis of epilepsy (as defined in individual studies), of any age and of either gender, treated with antiepileptic drugs in a primary care, outpatient or other community setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed each study according to the Cochrane criteria. The studies differed widely according to intervention and measures of adherence, therefore combining data was not appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials met our inclusion criteria: five targeted adult epileptic patients with a combined patient number of 222 and one targeted parents of children with epilepsy (n = 51). Follow-up time was generally short: from one to six months. Two main types of intervention were examined: educational and behavioural modification. Each study compared treatment with no intervention 'usual care'. None compared one intervention with another. Due to heterogeneity between studies in terms of interventions and the methods used to measure adherence, we did not pool the results. Education and counselling of patients with epilepsy have shown mixed success. Behavioural interventions such as the use of intensive reminders and 'implementation intention' interventions provided more positive effects on adherence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intensive reminders and 'implementation intention' interventions appear promising in enhancing adherence to antiepileptic mediations, however we need more reliable evidence on their efficacy from carefully designed randomised controlled trials before a firm conclusion can be reached.

Mid-level providers in gastroenterology

One response to the challenges of modern day clinical practice has been to employ "mid-level providers" (MLPs), such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. MLPs may complement physicians by supporting patient self-management and performing routine, protocol-guided management. In turn, MLPs may improve health outcomes and simultaneously lower costs. Within gastroenterology, the prevalence of MLPs remains unknown, though it appears to be significant and increasing. Additionally, professional organizations predict that in the future, MLPs will play a central role in digestive disease care. Although incorporating MLPs into gastroenterology has great potential, numerous challenges exist, and their specific roles must first be defined and evaluated.

Care delivery and self-management strategies for adults with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy care has been criticised for its lack of impact. Various service models and strategies have been developed in response to perceived inadequacies in care provision.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of any specialised or dedicated intervention for the care of adults with epilepsy to the effectiveness of usual care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1988 to May 2006), PsychINFO (1806 to May 2006) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group, or time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each review author independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

There are 13 trials and 16 reports included in this review. Seven distinct groups of interventions were identified: seven papers reported on five trials of specialist epilepsy nurses. Of the 13 trials, at least three (four reports) have methodological weaknesses, and some of the results from other analyses within studies need to be interpreted with caution because of limiting factors in the studies. Consequently, there is currently limited evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and life quality of people with epilepsy. It was not possible to combine study results in a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, study populations, interventions, and time scales across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two intervention types, the specialist epilepsy nurse and self-management education, have some evidence of benefit. However, we did not find clear evidence that other service models substantially improve outcomes for adults with epilepsy. It is also possible that benefits are situation specific and may not generalise to other settings. These studies included only a small number of service providers whose individual competence or expertise may have had a significant impact on outcomes. At present it is not possible to advocate any single model of service provision.

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.

Implementation of nurse-delivered vestibular rehabilitation in primary care: a qualitative study of nurses? views on involvement in an innovative service

AIM

To explore practice nurses' perceptions of vestibular rehabilitation and its place in relation to their general role development.

BACKGROUND

Vestibular rehabilitation has been known for a long time to be effective for chronically dizzy patients in secondary care, but its use in primary care has been limited. A recent pragmatic trial of vestibular rehabilitation delivered by practice nurses in primary care has confirmed its utility in a community setting. This type of role is increasingly common for practice nurses, but few studies explore the nurses' perspective.

METHODS

A qualitative study was undertaken; 19 nurses took part in focus group sessions. Participants discussed their views on vestibular rehabilitation and its potential for integration with their existing role. A thematic analysis of the data was undertaken.

FINDINGS

Four main themes were identified: creating a unique nursing role; the therapeutic role; responsibility and role boundaries; and time. Nurses were positive about developing extended roles, but sought ways to achieve this without eroding fundamental nursing skills. Vestibular rehabilitation was seen as fulfilling both the need for a distinct nursing identity and professional development. Concerns over responsibility for patient assessment and time management constraints are potential obstacles to overcome in the wider development of this therapy in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the perspective of nurses will be vital in future development of chronic disease management within primary care. Whilst nurses may be positive about such role expansion, the implementation of services of this type will require clarity about nurses' responsibilities and flexibility in managing workload.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Vestibular rehabilitation is simple, low-tech and appropriate for widespread development in primary care. Nurses wishing to provide vestibular rehabilitation or similar chronic disease management activities will need to work with medical colleagues to define role boundaries.

General practitioners' reasons for the failure of a randomized controlled trial (The TIGER Trial) to implement epilepsy guidelines in primary care

PURPOSE

To explore reasons for the failure of a randomized controlled trial to influence implementation of epilepsy guidelines in primary care, and to generate theory about likely contexts in which guidelines would lead to changes in clinician behavior.

METHODS

Qualitative study based on focus groups and a single in-depth interview. Participants included 47 primary health care staff selected from a purposive sample of 13 urban and rural general practices.

RESULTS

The key reason for the lack of implementation of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network epilepsy guideline was an established pattern of general practitioner behavior, supported by practice staff, with which there was little perceived need to change. Secondary to this was a lack of knowledge of the existence and/or content of the guideline and perceived difficulties in implementing them in practice stemming from resource constraints and possible patient resistance. The individual behavior of clinicians was therefore rooted in wider service structures and policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines may be more likely to be implemented where there are perceived problems with current service delivery. Attempts to facilitate the implementation of guidelines could also focus on areas where there is already a perceived need for guidance or a disruption in one of the underlying variables that maintain the health professional's role and practice. They may also be more likely where initiatives are focused more widely than individual physician behavior and are more broadly directed toward redesigning the wider care delivery systems by incorporating other providers to provide care coordination, enhancing patient self-management, and using information technology tools.

Long-term conditions: making sense of the current policy agenda

This article is first of a series focusing on long-term conditions and aims to guide district nurses through the whole raft of policies that are currently emerging from the Department of Health for England and Wales. The article provides an overview of current policy by taking the reader through the initiatives, starting with population-wide prevention and concluding with policies focusing on clients with complex needs. The main triggers for government health strategies and the influence of models from the United States are discussed. The national service framework for long term conditions is explained and used as an example of the current emphasis on generic, rather than condition-specific, initiatives. The article concludes by drawing the initiatives together within the most recent model to come out of the Department of Health--the NHS and Social Care Model.

A structured, nurse-led intervention program improves quality of life in patients with epilepsy: a randomized, controlled trial

We tested the hypothesis that structured epilepsy nursing improves quality of life (QOL). One hundred fourteen adult patients with uncontrolled epilepsy were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group was offered an interactive, 1-day group education program followed by extended nurse follow-up and counseling. The nurse was present at as many outpatient consultations as possible and performed repeated consultations by telephone. All patients completed the QOLIE-89 before randomization and after 2 years. QOL was significantly improved from inclusion to completion of study in the intervention group (P=0.019), mainly in the subitems for Health Discouragement (P=0.01), Medication Effects (P=0.035), and Physical Role Limitations (P=0.05). To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a significant effect of a structured nurse-led intervention program in QOL of patients with epilepsy.

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.

The information needs of carers of adults diagnosed with epilepsy

AIM

The aim of the study was to explore the information needs of informal carers, and how information from health professionals can become more effective for families caring for people with epilepsy.

METHODS

A combined methodology was used, comprising an interview study and a survey. Twelve in-depth interviews with carers were carried out. The questionnaire was developed using the interview data, to which 70 carers responded.

RESULTS

Four main themes have been drawn from the study. Carers' of people with epilepsy have a need for improved and more appropriate levels of information giving by health professionals in both primary and secondary care. Carers' perceived self-efficacy expectations in seeking information are positive but they do not always feel listened to. Carers' prefer to receive information in a one-to-one setting but also need information from formats other than leaflets. Carers' perceive barriers to having their information needs met, such as their needs being unrecognised in relation to the person with epilepsy.

Implementation strategies for a Scottish national epilepsy guideline in primary care: results of the Tayside Implementation of Guidelines in Epilepsy Randomized (TIGER) trial

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of two dissemination and implementation strategies to implement a national guideline for epilepsy management in primary care settings.

METHODS

Three-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. The participants were general practitioners from 68 practices in Tayside, Scotland, and 1,133 of their patients with self-reported epilepsy treated with antiepileptic medications (AEDs). Practices were randomized blind to a control, intermediate, or intensive intervention.

CONTROL

Postal dissemination of a nationally developed clinical guideline. Intermediate intervention: Postal dissemination of the guideline supported by interactive, accredited workshops, and dedicated, structured protocol documents. Intensive intervention: Intermediate intervention plus a nurse specialist who supported and educated practices in the establishment of epilepsy review clinics. The primary outcome was the SF-36 health-related quality-of-life instrument. Secondary measures were a battery of prevalidated epilepsy-specific quality-of-life instruments. These were administered at baseline and after the intervention phase. Process of care was assessed by case-note review on number of review meetings and counseling sessions for epilepsy before and after the interventions.

RESULTS

None of the intervention groups showed any change in the primary or secondary outcome measures or process-of-care measures.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the intervention strategies led to improvements in patient quality of life or quality of epilepsy care. Further research is needed to discover why the interventions failed, to identify barriers to adoption of guidelines, and to develop strategies that might improve implementation and uptake in the future.

The role of the clinical nurse specialist in epilepsy

PURPOSE

To review and describe the key roles of the UK clinical nurse specialist in epilepsy (CNSE), and to identify the specialist nurses' contribution to care through an exploration of CNSE's perceptions of their roles.

METHOD

Using the Delphi technique [Applied Project Design and Analysis, 3rd ed., Churchill Livingstone, London, 2000, p. 243] a national survey of all known UK CNSEs was completed. One hundred and thirty questionnaires identifying nine key hypotheses central to the role of the CNSE were distributed and 76 valid questionnaires returned.

RESULTS

The response rate was 63% and was geographically representative of the UK population of CNSEs. CNSEs were employed in a range of hospital and community settings with differing patient groups. Seventy-two percent of respondents held higher academic nursing qualifications but only 36% had previous epilepsy or neurology experience. Thirty percent of respondents had been employed in the role of CNSE for more than 5 years and 84% were employed as a G or H grade nurse. Only 39% of CNSEs held nurse-led clinics and of those 32% were responsible for all decisions made during their clinic. Furthermore, 40% of CNSEs saw new patients who had not previously been reviewed by one of the medical team. The level of responsibility for drug management was mainly at a monitoring and advisory level but a small number of CNSEs held much greater responsibility. The responses to the nine hypotheses were compared using cross tabulations.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the study and the review of the CNSE in the UK revealed that the key roles of the CNSE were difficult to define. Yet, the respondents identified that there were common core features central to their contribution to care as specialist nurses.

Perspectives from a developed nation

Epilepsy is the most common serious neurologic disorder, affecting 350,000 people in the United Kingdom. There are five neurologists per 1,000,000 population, which is better than in India but much lower than in other developed nations. Thus, a patient's day-to-day prescribing, supervision, and support depends on primary care. In the U.K., patients are entitled to register with a general practitioner (GP), who has an average of 1,841 patients. Seventy-eight percent of patients will consult their GP annually. Patients in the U.K. find that GPs are accessible and have good communication skills. There is, however, inadequate time in short consultations to provide the quality of care suggested by the latest review of services for patients with epilepsy (CSAG). This is further complicated by the heterogeneous and stigmatising nature of the condition. An improvement in the process of care in the primary-care setting can result from three important strategies: appropriately trained practice nurses running practice nurse-led clinics; structured management of care, possible because of the unique system of registration, which facilitates audit, prescription monitoring, and recall; and, finally, improved teamwork and communication based on protocols locally agreed upon between primary and secondary care. The future will tell whether these initiatives will improve the outcomes of care.

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.

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.

Professional and organizational obstacles to establishing a new specialist service in primary care: case study of an epilepsy specialist nurse

BACKGROUND

Few evaluations of the effectiveness of specialist nurse-led services explore the nurse's experiences, attitudes and qualities. This can help us to understand why a service has the effects it does and to inform new specialist nurses of potential difficulties.

AIM

To explore the experiences, feelings and perceived problems of providing a new specialist nurse service from the nurse's perspective.

METHODS

This was a case study nested within a controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of an epilepsy specialist nurse-led service on the quality of patient care. In-depth interviews were conducted with the specialist nurse at the end of the first and second year of the new service. Interviews were audio-tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcribed text was methodically coded and themes were identified. A descriptive account, summarizing the findings of both interviews, was written based on the thematic coding of text.

RESULTS

Overall, the epilepsy nurse felt a sense of achievement and believed that the service had had a beneficial impact on both patients and health care professionals in the locality. However, she experienced many operational problems, especially adapting to a primary care setting, difficulties in meeting practice staff and in motivating them, and contending with a heavy workload. These problems were partly attributable to her lack of community work experience and more generally to the structure of the service.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that specialist nurses responsible for providing primary care services would benefit from having theoretical knowledge and practical experience of working in the community prior to starting in post. The aims of a service need to be consistent with the available resources. Accounts of other specialist nurse's experiences of providing a primary care service could help to reduce set up time. Finally, support in the form of a coherent team is important to avoid feelings of professional isolation and to maximize effective use of specialist skills.

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.

Methodologies analysing individual practice in health care: a systematic review

AIM OF THE REVIEW

The aim of the systematic review was to identify, explore and evaluate the current level of knowledge of methodologies used in comparative analyses of the individual practice of doctors, nurses and midwives.

RATIONALE

The question of how roles and responsibilities might be shared differently between professional groups in order to promote improved, cost-effective health care requires a systematic analysis of existing roles and practice. To do this effectively, knowledge of the methodologies available for such an analysis is essential.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published since 1989 comparing the practice of doctors, nurses and midwives was undertaken.

FINDINGS

The findings are presented in tabular format and include the following categories of published methodologies: experimental/quasi-experimental; descriptive/nonexperimental and qualitative studies. The discussion centres on a critique of quantitative methodologies used to analyse individual practice in relation to role substitution and diversification. The potential contribution of qualitative methodologies in the analysis of individual practice is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors conclude that the current level of knowledge is biased towards quantitative research. It is argued that the assessment of health care roles and responsibilities would be well served by a more balanced approach that recognizes the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative work.

The practice nurse's role in the management of epilepsy

Epilepsy is a serious and common neurological condition of which the medical, psychological and social implications are far-reaching. This article aims to discuss the practice nurse's role in responding to the needs of clients with epilepsy. This is explored from a primary health care perspective, focusing on nursing interventions and implications for practice. The potential exists for community nursing intervention to improve quality of life for clients through responsive service provision and by challenging the inequality that appears to exist with regard to it. The available research is overtly pharmacological in origin and nursing research in this field is extremely sparse.

Defining the nursing contribution to patient outcome: lessons from a review of the literature examining nursing outcomes, skill mix and changing roles

A review of the evidence to define the nursing contribution to patient outcome is presented. The review relies on work related to nursing sensitive outcomes, skill mix and changing roles. Methodological difficulties associated with these studies are highlighted. Areas requiring further research are discussed. It is suggested that experimental evidence is not always appropriate, when attempting to describe nursing activity. The authors advocate that new methodologies, in particular practitioner-centred research, are needed to unpack the nature of nursing.

A classification system of social problems: concepts and influence on GPs' registration of problems

OBJECTIVES

(1) To test lists of problems in the three axes of well-being (physical, mental, and social) with the GPs' collaboration (2) To place the resulting classification in the context of other ones aiming at collecting data about psycho-social aspects of life (assessment, index and classification systems). (3) To test if GPs would be induced to record psychological and social problems more often in their everyday practice, after having been trained to look more closely at them, inter allia with the use of classification and codes.

METHOD

The lists of problems have been initiated by the WHO Department of Mental Health and discussed at an international symposium; they were then tested on the field, first at an international level, then in Belgium. After discussion by 4 Belgian GPs' Teaching Units, they were then improved. In all surveys concerned, general practitioners were asked to collaborate in three ways: opening their usual medical records and collaborating to prospective phases, including one "test phase," i.e., a training session, recording problems with the use of coding lists, and looking for the proper code. Retrospective and prospective approaches were used both before and after this test phase.

RESULTS

(1) The original lists of problems have been improved on the basis of the findings in medical files and in the survey. (2) A conceptual framework is presented for recording social problems, either in everyday practice (i.e., in health records) or in research settings, e.g., for social surveys. It is biaxial: domains and types of problem. (3) Training GPs for using such a coding system drastically increases the number of psycho-social problems, but only during the prospective phases. In the long run older habits prevail again; only the overall number of contacts mentioning a reason increases, together with the number of "other" reasons for encounter (requests, ...).

CONTENTS

(1) Main concepts (section 1). (2) Various tools for measuring psychosocial problems and well-being (section 2). (3) New conceptual fanmework for a classification of psychosocial problems ( 2.2.3). (4) Using the lists: influence on MDs' recording propensity (section 3).

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.

Newly diagnosed epilepsy: can nurse specialists help? A randomized controlled trial. Epilepsy Care Evaluation Group

PURPOSE

To describe a group of people with newly diagnosed epilepsy and to test the effect of an epilepsy nurse specialist on patients' knowledge of epilepsy, satisfaction with the advice provided, and psychological well-being.

METHODS

Neurologists in the United Kingdom (U.K.) recruited adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Patients were randomized to receive the offer of two appointments with an epilepsy nurse specialist or usual medical care. The main outcome measures were a questionnaire assessing patients' knowledge of epilepsy, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and patients' reported satisfaction with the advice and explanations provided on key epilepsy-related topics.

RESULTS

Ninety people with new epilepsy completed the trial. At baseline, fewer than half the patients reported having been given enough advice on epilepsy, and there were important differences in patients' knowledge of epilepsy. Lack of a U.K. school-leaving examination pass (General Certificate School Examination) was associated with lower knowledge of epilepsy (p = 0.03). At follow-up, the patients randomized to see the nurse specialist were significantly more likely to report that enough advice had been provided on most epilepsy-related topics compared with the control group. There were no significant differences in knowledge of epilepsy scores. However, there were significant differences in the group who, at baseline, had knowledge scores in the lowest quartile; those randomized to the nurse had higher knowledge scores (42.7 vs. 37.2; p < 0.01). Compared with doctors, the nurse was highly rated for providing clear explanations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have less general education have less knowledge of epilepsy. The introduction of a nurse specialist in epilepsy is associated with a significant increase in patient reports that enough advice has been provided. Nurse intervention appears to help those with the least knowledge of epilepsy improve their knowledge scores.

Innovations in the nursing care of the chronically ill: a literature review from an international perspective

This literature review focuses on substitution-related innovations in the nursing care of chronic patients in six western industrialized countries. Differences between primary and secondary care-orientated countries in the kind of innovations implemented are discussed. Health care systems are increasingly being confronted with chronic patients who need complex interventions tailored to their individual needs. However, it seems that today's health care professionals, organizations and budgets are not sufficiently prepared to provide this kind of care. As a result, health care policy in many countries targets innovations which reduce health care costs and, at the same time, improve the quality of care. Frequently, these innovations are related directly to the 'substitution of care' phenomenon, in which care is provided by the most appropriate professional at the lowest cost level, and encompass advanced nursing practice, hospital-at-home care and integrated care. The main conclusion of this paper is that integrated care innovations are implemented in both primary care as well as in secondary care-orientated countries. However, innovations in hospital-at-home care and advanced nursing practice are primarily implemented in primary care-orientated countries. Whether these innovations positively influence the quality of care, costs of care or patients' use of health care facilities remains rather unclear.