Design and implementation of electronic health record common data elements for pediatric epilepsy: Foundations for a learning health care system.

OBJECTIVE: Common data elements (CDEs) are standardized questions and answer choices that allow aggregation, analysis, and comparison of observations from multiple sources. Clinical CDEs are foundational for learning health care systems, a data-driven approach to health care focused on continuous improvement of outcomes. We aimed to create clinical CDEs for pediatric epilepsy. METHODS: A multiple stakeholder group (clinicians, researchers, parents, caregivers, advocates, and electronic health record [EHR] vendors) developed clinical CDEs for routine care of children with epilepsy. Initial drafts drew from clinical epilepsy note templates, CDEs created for clinical research, items in existing registries, consensus documents and guidelines, quality metrics, and outcomes needed for demonstration projects. The CDEs were refined through discussion and field testing. We describe the development process, rationale for CDE selection, findings from piloting, and the CDEs themselves. We also describe early implementation, including experience with EHR systems and compatibility with the International League Against Epilepsy classification of seizure types. RESULTS: Common data elements were drafted in August 2017 and finalized in January 2020. Prioritized outcomes included seizure control, seizure freedom, American Academy of Neurology quality measures, presence of common comorbidities, and quality of life. The CDEs were piloted at 224 visits at 10 centers. The final CDEs included 36 questions in nine sections (number of questions): diagnosis (1), seizure frequency (9), quality of life (2), epilepsy history (6), etiology (8), comorbidities (2), treatment (2), process measures (5), and longitudinal history notes (1). Seizures are categorized as generalized tonic-clonic (regardless of onset), motor, nonmotor, and epileptic spasms. Focality is collected as epilepsy type rather than seizure type. Seizure frequency is measured in nine levels (all used during piloting). The CDEs were implemented in three vendor systems. Early clinical adoption included 1294 encounters at one center. SIGNIFICANCE: We created, piloted, refined, finalized, and implemented a novel set of clinical CDEs for pediatric epilepsy.

Seizure documentation in people living with epilepsy.

Seizure documentation is an essential component of epilepsy management. Not all persons with epilepsy choose to document their seizures, but many view the practice as essential to managing their disease. While seizure documentation is a valuable aspect of patient care, clinicians and patients must remain aware that seizure underreport and overreport commonly occur due to lack of seizure awareness. Additionally, in rare cases, persons with epilepsy may intentionally conceal their seizures from clinicians. The continued development of electronic seizure diaries and epilepsy self-management software provides patients with new and expanding options for seizure documentation and disease management. In order for these tools to be utilized most effectively, patient input must be central to their development. Given the limitations of seizure documentation, the development of accurate, non-invasive seizure detection devices is crucial for accurate seizure monitoring.

The rescue therapy in epilepsy project Part 2: Insights from people with epilepsy and families on expert-derived preferred practices.

BACKGROUND: The number and type of therapies available to treat seizure clusters (SCs) or periods of increased seizure activity have risen in recent years. Gaps still exist on defining SCs, when to use them, and educating patients and families. The Epilepsy Foundation developed and published expert-derived consensus on preferred practices for rescue therapies (RTs), 79% of which were agreed upon by a larger group of healthcare professionals (HCPs). This paper describes insights from people with epilepsy (PWE) and families/caregivers (FCGs) on these practices to assess similarities and trends between PWE, FCGs, an expert panel, and HCPs. METHODS: Online survey including expert-derived preferred practices for RT was completed by a convenience sample of 176 PWE/FCGs. Respondents rated agreement with each preferred practice using a 0-8 point Likert scale. Results were examined by relationship to epilepsy, prior use of RTs, and comparison to the expert panel and larger group of HCPs. RESULTS: 41.5% of respondents were PWE and 54.6% were FCGs; 70% represented PWE age 18 and over or those who cared for adults with epilepsy. Levels of agreement were similar to those of HCPs - consensus was obtained on 79% of preferred practices. Differences were noted on which items achieved consensus and strength of consensus for some items. Differences between PWE and FCG, and between those who had and had not previously used a RT were found. A proposed definition of SCs did not reach consensus, but there was strong consensus for individualized seizure action plans and more RT education.

Establishing a learning healthcare system to improve health outcomes for people with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the organization of the Epilepsy Learning Healthcare System (ELHS), a network that aims to improve care outcomes for people with epilepsy (PWE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients and family partners, providers, researchers, epidemiologists, and other leaders collaborated to recruit epilepsy centers and community services organizations into a novel learning network. A multidisciplinary Coordinating Committee developed ELHS governance and organizational structure, including four key planning Cores (Community, Clinical, Quality Improvement, and Data). Through Quality Improvement (QI) methodology grounded in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) model, including iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) rapid learning cycles and other learning and sharing sessions, ELHS equipped epilepsy centers and community organizations with tools to standardize, measure, share, and improve key aspects of epilepsy care. The initial learning cycles addressed provider documentation of seizure frequency and type, and also screening for medication adherence barriers. Rapid learning cycles have been carried out on these initial measures in both clinical centers and community-based settings. Additional key measures have been defined for quality of life, screening, and treatment for mental health and behavioral comorbidities, transition from pediatric to adult care, counseling for women and girls living with epilepsy, referral for specialty care, and prevention and treatment of seizure clusters and status epilepticus. RESULTS: It is feasible to adopt a learning healthcare system framework in epilepsy centers and community services organizations. Through structured collaboration between epilepsy care providers, community support organizations, PWE, and their families/caregivers we have identified new opportunities to improve outcomes that are not available in traditional care models.