"In the wilderness dealing with difficult situations": Knowledge exchange with care home staff in England on managing seizures and epilepsy - An initial exploration.

PURPOSE: With epilepsy increasingly affecting older adults, seizure-related care needs arise in new settings. Persons in these settings must receive optimal support and challenges identified for remediation. This may entail the epilepsy community researching in unfamiliar environments. One setting is care homes. Seizure-related ambulance incidents in them are common. We conducted the first qualitative study with care home staff to explore their experiences and challenges in managing suspected seizures. METHODS: Three online focus groups were organised for January 2024 to explore ambulance calls, post-incident procedures, and challenges faced by care home staff when managing seizures. Persons were eligible to participate if they worked as a care assistant, nurse or manager in a care home in North-West England. Different recruitment pathways were employed including direct approach, a managers' network, social media and a register of research interested homes. Focus group audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using Hamilton's Rapid Analysis. RESULTS: Recruitment was difficult; 13 care home staff from 12 different homes were ultimately recruited. Despite data saturation not being achieved, insights were gained regarding ambulance call decisions, paperwork navigation, and follow-up care challenges. Patients not having meaningful seizure action plans in place and regulatory restrictions were identified as factors that contributed to potentially avoidable calls for ambulance help being made. CONCLUSION: This study highlights systemic issues in care homes' seizure care, emphasizing the need for further research. The epilepsy community may need to innovate to better research within this increasingly important setting. This study offers insights into the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies.

Statins as an antiepileptogenic or disease-modifying treatment? A survey of what UK patients and significant others think about repurposing and trialing them for epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the views of people with epilepsy (PWE), and their significant others, on the repurposing and trialing of statins as a potential antiepileptogenic or disease-modifying treatment for those who have had the first seizure. METHODS: Online questionnaire. Participants needed to be aged ≥ 16 years, UK residents, and able to independently complete a questionnaire in English. User groups distributed study adverts. Embedded infographics explained repurposing, why anti-seizure treatment is not typically started after a first seizure and the nature of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs). The questionnaire asked participants to reflect and rate their expected willingness to have started an unspecified treatment after their first seizure/s (or that of the person with epilepsy they knew). They also rated willingness if the treatment were a statin, views of statins, the importance of an RCT of statins to their community, the outcomes it should assess, and their willingness to have taken part in it. The estimated number needed for the survey was 324. RESULTS: Responses from 213 persons were analyzed; 111 (52.1%) were PWE and 102 (47.9%) significant others. The median years diagnosed was 10 and PWE suffered from relatively severe epilepsy. One hundred and seventeen (54.9%) said they would have started an unspecified treatment after their first seizure/s (or supported the person with epilepsy they knew to have). A similar proportion (55.4%) said they would have started the treatment if it were a statin. Participants' main concern about statins, expressed by 79%, was their possible side effects. Repurposing was a concern for only 25%. Most (85.8%) rated an RCT of statins as of extreme or high importance; 54.4% said they would have participated. CONCLUSION: The PWE and significant others (SOs) responding to our survey expressed views towards repurposing statins that were generally positive and indicate a trial in those who have had a first seizure might be feasible. Concerns regarding side effects are common. Our findings could help optimize a future trial's design and the case for funding. Limitations include that we did not survey persons who had experienced a first seizure and did not go on to develop epilepsy. Also, persons with uncontrolled epilepsy were overrepresented.

Raring to go? A cross-sectional survey of student paramedics on how well they perceive their UK pre-registration course to be preparing them to manage suspected seizures.

BACKGROUND: Paramedics convey a high proportion of seizure patients with no clinical need to emergency departments (EDs). In a landmark study, only 27% of UK paramedics reported being "Very…"/ "Extremely confident" making seizure conveyance decisions. Improved pre-registration education on seizures for paramedics is proposed. Clarity is needed on its potential given recent changes to how UK paramedics train (namely, degree, rather than brief vocational course). This study sought to describe UK student paramedics' perceived readiness to manage seizures and educational needs; compare this to what they report for other presentations; and, explore subgroup differences. METHODS: Six hundred thirty-eight students, in year 2 or beyond of their pre-registration programme completed a cross-sectional survey. They rated perceived confidence, knowledge, ability to care for, and educational needs for seizures, breathing problems and, headache. Primary measure was conveyance decision confidence. RESULTS: For seizures, 45.3% (95% CI 41.4-49.2) said they were "Very…"/"Extremely confident" to make conveyance decisions. This was similar to breathing problems, but higher than for headache (25.9%, 95% CI 22.6-29.5). Two hundred and thirty-nine participants (37.9%, 95% CI 34.1-41.8) said more seizure education was required - lower than for headache, but higher than for breathing problems. Subgroup differences included students on university-based programmes reporting more confidence for conveyance decisions than those completing degree level apprenticeships. CONCLUSIONS: Student paramedics report relatively high perceived readiness for managing seizures. Magnitude of benefit from enhancements to pre-registration education may be more limited than anticipated. Additional factors need attention if a sizeable reduction to unnecessary conveyances for seizures is to happen.

Care in Europe after presenting to the emergency department with a seizure; position paper and insights from the European Audit of Seizure Management in Hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This position paper makes recommendations following an audit of care provided to people presenting with a seizure to emergency departments (EDs) in Europe. METHODS: Participating countries were asked to include five hospitals agreeing to identify 50 consecutive seizure patients presenting to their ED between 1 August 2016 and 31 August 2017. Anonymous data were collected to a web database. Where quoted, percentages are mean site values and ranges are the 10th-90th centile. RESULTS: Data were collected on 2204 ED visits (47 sites, up to six per country, across 15 countries): 1270 (58%) known epilepsy, 299 (14%) previous blackouts but no epilepsy diagnosis, 634 (29%) with a first seizure. Wide variability was identified for most variables. Of those with known epilepsy, 41.2% (range 26.2%-59.6%) attended the ED in the previous 12 months, but only 64.7% (range 37.2%-79.8%) had seen an epilepsy specialist in the previous 12 months. 67.7% (range 34.0%-100%) were admitted, 53.1% to a neurology ward (range 0.0%-88.9%). Only 37.5% first seizure patients (range 0.0%-71.4%) were given advice about driving. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that in Europe guidance is agreed on the management and onward referral of those presenting to the ED with a seizure; a referral process is created that can be easily implemented; it is ensured that the seizure services receive referrals and see the patients within a short time period; and a simple system is developed and implemented to allow continuous monitoring of key indices of epilepsy care.

Levetiracetam add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Drug resistance is common in focal epilepsy. In this update, we summarised the current evidence regarding add-on levetiracetam in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The original review was published in 2001 and last updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of levetiracetam when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to November 2018. We contacted the manufacturers of levetiracetam and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of add-on levetiracetam treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency (response), treatment withdrawal, adverse effects (including a specific analysis of changes in behaviour), cognitive effects, and quality of life (QoL). Primary analysis was intention-to-treat. We performed meta-analysis for all outcomes using a Mantel-Haenszel approach and calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all estimates apart from adverse effects (99% CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using a Chi² test and the I² statistic. MAIN RESULTS: This update included 14 trials (2455 participants), predominantly possessing low risks of bias. Participants were adults in 12 trials (2159 participants) and children in the remaining two (296 participants). The doses of levetiracetam tested were 500 mg/day to 4000 mg/day in adults, and 60 mg/kg/day in children. Treatment ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. When individual doses were examined, levetiracetam at either 500 mg/day or 4000 mg/day did not perform better than placebo for the 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency outcome (500 mg: RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.62; P = 0.26; 4000 mg: RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.57; P = 0.34). Levetiracetam was significantly better than placebo at all other individual doses (1000 mg to 3000 mg). RR was significantly in favour of levetiracetam compared to placebo when results were pooled across all doses (RR 2.37, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.78; 14 studies, 2455 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose-response analysis demonstrated that the odds of achieving response (50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency) were increased by nearly 40% (odds ratio (OR) 1.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.58) for each 1000 mg increase in dose of levetiracetam. There were important levels of heterogeneity across multiple comparisons. Participants were not significantly more likely to experience treatment withdrawal with levetiracetam than with placebo (pooled RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 13 studies, 2428 participants; high-certainty evidence). Somnolence was the most common adverse effect, affecting 13% of participants, and it was significantly associated with levetiracetam compared to placebo (pooled RR 1.62, 99% CI 1.19 to 2.20; 13 studies, 2423 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Changes in behaviour were negligible in adults (1% affected; RR 1.79, 99% CI 0.59 to 5.41), but significant in children (23% affected; RR 1.90, 99% CI 1.16 to 3.11). Levetiracetam had a positive effect on some aspects of cognition and QoL in adults and worsened certain aspects of child behaviour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review update finds that in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, levetiracetam added on to usual care is more effective than placebo at reducing seizure frequency, it is unlikely to be stopped by patients, and it has minimal adverse effects outside of potential worsening behaviour in children. These findings are unchanged from the previous review update in 2012. This review update contributes two key additional findings: 1. a 500 mg daily dose of levetiracetam is no more effective than placebo at reducing seizures; and 2. the odds of response (50% reduction in seizure frequency) are increased by nearly 40% for each 1000 mg increase in dose of levetiracetam. It seems reasonable to continue the use of levetiracetam in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

The adverse effects profile of levetiracetam in epilepsy: a more detailed look.

The adverse effects profile of levetiracetam in epilepsy is still being fully described. We recently published a Cochrane Review evaluating the effectiveness of levetiracetam, added on to usual care, in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The five most common adverse effects were reported and analysed with no scope for reporting any less common adverse effects than those. Here, we report and analyse the remaining adverse effects (including the five most common). These were (in decreasing order of frequency) somnolence; headache; asthenia; accidental injury; dizziness; infection; pharyngitis; pain; rhinitis; abdominal pain; flu syndrome; vomiting; diarrhoea; convulsion; nausea; increased cough; anorexia; upper respiratory tract infection; hostility; personality disorder; urinary tract infection; nervousness; depression; aggression; back pain; agitation; emotional liability; psychomotor hyperactivity; pyrexia; rash; ECG abnormalities; decreased appetite; nasal congestion; irritability; abnormal behaviour; epistaxis; insomnia; altered mood; anxiety; bloody urine; diplopia; dissociation; memory impairment; pruritis; increased appetite; acne; and stomach discomfort. Only somnolence and infection were significantly associated with levetiracetam. When adverse effects pertaining to infection were combined, these affected 19.7% and 15.1% of participants on levetiracetam and placebo (relative risk 1.16, CI 0.89-1.50, Chi(2) heterogeneity p = 0.13). Somnolence and infection further retained significance in adults while no single adverse effect was significant in children. This review updates the adverse effects profile data on levetiracetam use by empirically reporting its common and uncommon adverse effects and analysing their relative importance statistically using data from a group of trials that possess low Risk of Bias and high Quality of Evidence GRADE scores.

Service users' preferences and feasibility - which alternative care pathway for adult ambulance users achieves the optimal balance? Workshops for the COLLABORATE project.

INTRODUCTION: Adults presenting to the ambulance service for diagnosed epilepsy are often transported to emergency departments (EDs) despite no clinical need. An alternative care pathway (CP) could allow paramedics to divert them from ED and instigate ambulatory care improvements. To identify the most promising CP configuration for subsequent testing, the COLLABORATE project surveyed people with epilepsy and family/friends who had recently used the English ambulance service to elicit preferences for 288 CP configurations for different seizures. This allowed CPs to be ranked according to alignment with service users' preferences. However, as well as being acceptable to users, a CP must be feasible. We thus engaged with paramedics, epilepsy specialists and commissioners to identify the optimal configuration. METHODS: Three Knowledge Exchange workshops completed. Participants considered COLLABORATE's evidence on service users' preferences for the different configurations. Nominal group techniques elicited views on the feasibility of users' preferences according to APEASE criteria. Workshop groups specified the configuration/s considered optimum. Qualitative data was analysed thematically. Utility to users of the specified CP configurations estimated using the COLLABORATE preference survey data. RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants found service users' preferences broadly feasible and outlined delivery recommendations. They identified enough commonality in preferences for different seizures to propose a single CP. Its configuration comprised: 1) patients staying where they were; 2) paramedics having access to medical records; 3) care episodes lasting <6 h; 4) paramedics receiving specialist advice on the day; 5) patient's GP being notified; and 6) a follow-up appointment being arranged with an epilepsy specialist. Preference data indicated higher utility for this configuration compared to current care. DISCUSSION: Stakeholders are of the view that the CP configuration favoured by service users could be NHS feasible. It should be developed and evaluated.

Developing an alternative care pathway for emergency ambulance responses for adults with epilepsy: A Discrete Choice Experiment to understand which configuration service users prefer. Part of the COLLABORATE project.

INTRODUCTION: To identify service users' preferences for an alternative care pathway for adults with epilepsy presenting to the ambulance service. METHODS: Extensive formative work (qualitative, survey and knowledge exchange) informed the design of a stated preference discrete choice experiment (DCE). This hypothetical survey was hosted online and consisted of 12 binary choices of alternative care pathways described in terms of: the paramedic's access to medical records/ 'care plan', what happens next (described in terms of conveyance), time, availability of epilepsy specialists today, general practitioner (GP) notification and future contact with epilepsy specialists. DCE scenarios were described as: (i) typical seizure at home. (ii) typical seizure in public, (iii) atypical seizure. Respondents were recruited by a regional English ambulance service and by national public adverts. Participants were randomised to complete 2 of the 3 DCEs. RESULTS: People with epilepsy (PWE; n = 427) and friends/family (n = 167) who completed the survey were representative of the target population. PWE preferred paramedics to have access to medical records, non-conveyance, to avoid lengthy episodes of care, availability of epilepsy specialists today, GP notification, and contact with epilepsy specialists within 2-3 weeks. Significant others (close family members or friends) preferred PWE experiencing an atypical seizure to be conveyed to an Urgent Treatment Centre and preferred shorter times. Optimal configuration of services from service users' perspective far out ranked current practice (rank 230/288 possible configurations). DISCUSSION: Preferences differ to current practice but have minimal variation by seizure type or stakeholder. Further work on feasibility of these pathways in England, and potentially beyond, is required.

Levetiracetam add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy: an updated Cochrane Review.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is an important neurological condition and drug resistance in epilepsy is particularly common in individuals with focal seizures. In this review, we summarise the current evidence regarding a new antiepileptic drug, levetiracetam, when used as add-on treatment for controlling drug-resistant focal epilepsy. This is an update to a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of levetiracetam, added on to usual care, in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2012), and MEDLINE (1946 to August week 1, 2012). We also contacted the manufacturers of levetiracetam and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of add-on levetiracetam treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall quality of evidence. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency (response); less than 50% reduction in focal seizure frequency (non-response); treatment withdrawal; adverse effects (including a specific analysis of changes in behaviour); cognitive effects and quality of life (QoL). Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as measures of effect (99% CIs for adverse effects). Primary analyses were Intention-to-Treat (ITT). Dose response and inter-trial heterogeneity were evaluated in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials (1861 participants) were included. They predominantly possessed low risks of bias. Participants were adults in nine trials (1565 participants) and children in the remaining two trials (296 participants). The dose of levetiracetam tested was 1000 to 4000 mg/day in adults, and 60 mg/kg/day in children. Treatment ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. For the 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency outcome, the RR was significantly in favour of levetiracetam at all doses. The naive estimates, ignoring dose, showed children (52% responded) as better responders than adults (39% responded) on levetiracetam. 25% of children and 16% of adults responded to placebo. The Number Needed to Treat for an additional beneficial outcome for children and adults was four (95% CI three to seven) and five (95% CI four to six), respectively. The significant levels of statistical heterogeneity between trials on adults precluded valid provision of an overall RR (ignoring dose). Results for the two trials that tested levetiracetam 2000 mg on adults were sufficiently similar to be combined to give an RR for 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency of 4.91 (95% CI 2.75 to 8.77), with an RR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.77) for non-response. At this dose, 37% and 8% of adults were responders in the levetiracetam and placebo groups, respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated that much of the heterogeneity between adult trials was likely to be explained by different doses of levetiracetam tested and different years of trial publication. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity between trials on children. For these trials, the RR for 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency was 1.91 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.63), with an RR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.81) for non-response. 27% of children responded. Participants were not significantly more likely to have levetiracetam withdrawn (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.32 and RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.46 for adults and children, respectively). For adults, somnolence (RR 1.51; 99% CI 1.06 to 2.17) and infection (RR 1.76; 99% CI 1.03 to 3.02) were significantly associated with levetiracetam. Accidental injury was significantly associated with placebo (RR 0.60; 99% CI 0.39 to 0.92). No individual adverse effect was significantly associated with levetiracetam in children. Changes in behaviour were negligible in adults (1% affected; RR 1.79; 99% CI 0.59 to 5.41) but significant in children (23% affected; RR 1.90; 99% CI 1.16 to 3.11). Cognitive effect and QoL outcomes suggested that levetiracetam had a positive effect on cognition and some aspects of QoL in adults. In children, levetiracetam did not appear to alter cognitive function but there was evidence of worsening in certain aspects of child behaviour. The overall quality of evidence used was high. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update adds seven more trials to the original review, which contained four trials. At every dose analysed, levetiracetam significantly reduced focal seizure frequency relative to placebo. This indicates that levetiracetam can significantly reduce focal seizure frequency when it is used as an add-on treatment for both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. As there was evidence of significant levels of statistical heterogeneity within this positive effect it is difficult to be precise about the relative magnitude of the effect. At a dose of 2000 mg, levetiracetam may be expected to be 3.9 times more effective than placebo; with 30% of adults being responders at this dose. At a dose of 60 mg/kg/day, levetiracetam may be expected to be 0.9 times more effective than placebo; with 25% of children being responders at this dose. When dose was ignored, children were better responders than adults by around 4% to 13%. The results grossly suggest that one child or adult may respond to levetiracetam for every four or five children or adults, respectively, that have received levetiracetam rather than placebo. The drug seems to be well tolerated in both adults and children although non-specific changes in behaviour may be experienced in as high as 20% of children. This aspect of the adverse-effect profile of levetiracetam was analysed crudely and requires further investigation and validation. It seems reasonable to continue the use of levetiracetam in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The results cannot be used to confirm longer-term or monotherapy effects of levetiracetam or its effects on generalised seizures. The conclusions are largely unchanged from those in the original review. The most significant contribution of this update is the addition of paediatric data into the analysis.

Care After Presenting with Seizures (CAPS): An analysis of the impact of a seizure referral pathway and nurse support on neurology referral rates for patients admitted with a seizure.

INTRODUCTION: The National Audit of Seizure Management in Hospitals (NASH) identified low referral rates to neurology and epilepsy services after an emergency department attendance or admission with a seizure. METHODS: National Health Service Secondary Users Service (SUS) data were used to assess the impact of a seizure pathway at seven hospitals in Cheshire & Merseyside, which was implemented in 2014. Three of these hospitals also had a nurse employed part-time to support the pathway. Patients admitted with a seizure between 2011 and 2018 inclusive were identified using an algorithm based on ICD-10 codes, and the primary outcome was a neurology referral within 3 months of admission. Regression models were used to assess the impact of age, deprivation and comorbidity on post admission clinic referral rates. RESULTS: 13,285 admissions with seizure were included in the analysis. 5,677 had not attended a neurology clinic appointment in the 12 months before the admission. The percentage of whom that were offered an appointment following the admission was: 16.0% before the pathway and 35.9% with the nurse-supported pathway, which was significant in the regression model. 4,700 admissions had attended a neurology clinic appointment in the 12 months before the admission. Of this group, the percentage of whom that were offered an appointment following the admission was: 55.2% before the pathway and 62.4% with the nurse-supported pathway, an increase that was not significant in the regression model. The regression models identified significant health inequalities whereby older patients, those with comorbidities and those living in deprived areas were significantly less likely to be referred. CONCLUSION: Neurology out-patient appointment rates following an admission with seizures are low, worryingly so for those with no neurology appointment in the previous 12 months. A nurse-supported pathway can improve appointment rates, but the effect is modest. Further service redesign is required; the impact of which should be rigorously evaluated.

Reducing variation in hospital mortality for alcohol-related liver disease in North West England.

BACKGROUND: Variations in emergency care quality for alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) have been highlighted. AIM: To determine whether introduction of a regional quality improvement (QI) programme was associated with a reduction in potentially avoidable inpatient mortality. METHOD: Retrospective observational cohort study using hospital administrative data spanning a 1-year period before (2014/2015) and 3 years after a QI initiative at seven acute hospitals in North West England. The intervention included serial audit of a bundle of process metrics. An algorithm was developed to identify index ("first") emergency admissions for ARLD (n = 3887). We created a standardised mortality ratio (SMR) to compare relative mortality and regression models to examine risk-adjusted odds of death. RESULTS: In 2014/2015, three of seven hospitals had an SMR above the upper control limit ("outliers"). Adjusted odds of death for patients admitted to outlier hospitals was higher than non-outliers (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.32-3.44, P = 0.002). Following the QI programme there was a step-wise reduction in outliers (none in 2017/2018). Odds of death was 67% lower in 2017/2018 compared to 2014/2015 at original outlier hospitals, but unchanged at other hospitals. Process audit performance of outliers was worse than non-outliers at baseline, but improved after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in unexplained variation in hospital mortality following the QI intervention. This challenges the pessimism that is prevalent for achieving better outcomes for patients with ARLD. Notwithstanding the limitations of an uncontrolled observational study, these data provide hope that co-ordinated efforts to drive adoption of evidence-based practice can save lives.

Nationwide improvement in outcomes of emergency admission for ulcerative colitis in England, 2005-2013.

BACKGROUND: The UK IBD Audit Programme reported improved inpatient care processes for ulcerative colitis (UC) between 2005 and 2013. There are no independent data describing national or institutional trends in patient outcomes over this period. AIM: To assess the association between the outcome of emergency admission for UC and year of treatment. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of hospital administrative data, focused on all emergency admissions to English public hospitals with a discharge diagnosis of UC. We extracted case mix factors (age, sex, co-morbidity, emergency bed days in last year, deprivation status), outcomes of index admission (death and first surgery), 30-day emergency readmissions (all-cause, and selected causes) and outcome of readmission. RESULTS: There were 765 deaths and 3837 unplanned first operations in 44 882 emergency admissions, with 5311 emergency readmissions (with a further 171 deaths and 517 first operations). Case mix adjusted odds of death for any given year were 9% lower (OR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94), and that for emergency surgery 3% lower (OR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) than the preceding year. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis (admissions lasting ≥4 days). There was no reduction in odds for all-cause readmission, but rates for venous thromboembolism declined significantly. Analysis of institutional-level metrics across 136 providers showed a stepwise reduction in outliers for mortality and unplanned surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of death and unplanned surgery for UC patients admitted as emergencies declined consistently, as did unexplained variation between hospitals. Risk of readmission was unchanged (over 1 in 10). Multiple factors are likely to explain these nationwide trends.

Resource implications of preparing individual participant data from a clinical trial to share with external researchers.

BACKGROUND: Demands are increasingly being made for clinical trialists to actively share individual participant data (IPD) collected from clinical trials using responsible methods that protect the confidentiality and privacy of clinical trial participants. Clinical trialists, particularly those receiving public funding, are often concerned about the additional time and money that data-sharing activities will require, but few published empirical data are available to help inform these decisions. We sought to evaluate the activity and resources required to prepare anonymised IPD from a clinical trial in anticipation of a future data-sharing request. METHODS: Data from two UK publicly funded clinical trials were used for this exercise: 2437 participants with epilepsy recruited from 90 hospital outpatient clinics in the SANAD trial and 146 children with neuro-developmental problems recruited from 18 hospitals in the MENDS trial. We calculated the time and resources required to prepare each anonymised dataset and assemble a data pack ready for sharing. RESULTS: The older SANAD trial (published 2007) required 50 hours of staff time with a total estimated associated cost of £3185 whilst the more recently completed MENDS trial (published 2012) required 39.5 hours of staff time with total estimated associated cost of £2540. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial researchers, funders and sponsors should consider appropriate resourcing and allow reasonable time for preparing IPD ready for subsequent sharing. This process would be most efficient if prospectively built into the standard operational design and conduct of a clinical trial. Further empirical examples exploring the resource requirements in other settings is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SANAD: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN38354748 . Registered on 25 April 2003. MENDS: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudract 2006-004025-28 . Registered on 16 May 2007. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN05534585 /MREC 07/MRE08/43. Registered on 26 January 2007.