Addressing barriers to surgical evaluation for patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with poorly controlled seizures are at elevated risk of epilepsy-related morbidity and mortality. For patients with drug-resistant epilepsy that is focal at onset, epilepsy surgery is the most effective treatment available and offers a 50-80% cure rate. Yet, it is estimated that only 1% of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy undergo surgery in a timely fashion, and delays to surgery completion are considerable. The aim of this study was to increase availability and decrease delay of surgical evaluation at our epilepsy center for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy by removing process barriers. METHODS: For this quality improvement (QI) initiative, we convened a multidisciplinary team to construct a presurgical pathway process map and complete root cause analysis. This inquiry revealed that the current condition allowed patients to proceed through the pathway without centralized oversight. Therefore, we appointed an epilepsy surgery nurse manager, and under her direction, multiple additional process improvement interventions were applied. We then retrospectively compared preintervention (2014-2015) and postintervention (2016-2017) cohorts of patient undergoing the presurgical pathway. The improvement measures were patient throughput and pathway sojourn times. As a balancing measure, we considered the proportion of potentially eligible patients (epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions) who ultimately completed epilepsy surgery. RESULTS: Following our intervention, patient throughput was substantially increased for each stage of the presurgical pathway (32%-96% growth). However, patient sojourn times were not improved overall. No difference was observed in the proportion of possible candidates who ultimately completed epilepsy surgery. SIGNIFICANCE: Although process improvement expanded the number of patients who underwent epilepsy surgical evaluation, we experienced concurrent prolongation of the time from pathway initiation to completion. Ongoing improvement cycles will focus on newly identified residual sources of bottleneck and delay.

Developing and Implementing a Standardized Ictal Examination in the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit.

BACKGROUND: The ictal examination is crucial for neuroanatomic localization of seizure onset, which informs medical and neurosurgical treatment of epilepsy. Substantial variation exists in ictal examination performance in epilepsy monitoring units (EMUs). We developed and implemented a standardized examination to facilitate rapid, reliable execution of all testing domains and adherence to patient safety maneuvers. METHODS: Following observation of examination performance, root cause analysis of barriers, and review of consensus guidelines, an ictal examination was developed and disseminated. In accordance with quality improvement methodology, revisions were enacted following the initial intervention, including differentiation between pathways for convulsive and nonconvulsive seizures. We evaluated ictal examination fidelity, efficiency, and EMU staff satisfaction before and after the intervention. RESULTS: We identified barriers to ictal examination performance as confusion regarding ictal examination protocol, inadequate education of the rationale for the examination and its components, and lack of awareness of patient-specific goals. Over an 18-month period, 100 ictal examinations were reviewed, 50 convulsive and 50 nonconvulsive. Ictal examination performance varied during the study period without sustained improvement for convulsive or nonconvulsive seizure examination. The new examination was faster to perform (0.8 vs 1.5 minutes). Postintervention, EMU staff expressed satisfaction with the examination, but many still did not understand why certain components were performed. CONCLUSION: We identified key barriers to EMU ictal assessment and completed real-world testing of a standardized, streamlined ictal examination. We found it challenging to reliably change ictal examination performance in our EMU; further study of implementation is warranted.