Training nurses in a competency framework to support adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability: the EpAID cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. SETTING: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults aged 18-65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers' views of participants' epilepsy management. RESULTS: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval -0.554 to 7.307; p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members' perceptions of nurses' management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. LIMITATIONS: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. FUNDING: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Shared care or nurse consultations as an alternative to rheumatologist follow-up for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outpatients with stable low disease-activity RA: cost-effectiveness based on a 2-year randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of three types of follow-up for outpatients with stable low-activity rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHOD: In total, 287 patients were randomized to either planned rheumatologist consultations, shared care without planned consultations, or planned nurse consultations. Effectiveness measures included disease activity (Disease Activity Score based on 28 joint counts and C-reactive protein, DAS28-CRP), functional status (Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ), and health-related quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D). Cost measures included activities in outpatient clinics and general practice, prescription and non-prescription medicine, dietary supplements, other health-care resources, and complementary and alternative care. Measures of effectiveness and costs were collected by self-reported questionnaires at inclusion and after 12 and 24 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness rates (ICERs) were estimated in comparison with rheumatologist consultations. RESULTS: Changes in disease activity, functional status, and health-related quality of life were not statistically significantly different for the three groups, although the mean scores were better for the shared care and nurse care groups compared with the rheumatologist group. Shared care and nurse care were non-significantly less costly than rheumatologist care. As both shared care and nurse care were associated with slightly better EQ-5D improvements and lower costs, they dominated rheumatologist care. At EUR 10,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold, shared care and nurse care were cost-effective with more than 90% probability. Nurse care was cost-effective in comparison with shared care with 75% probability. CONCLUSIONS: Shared care and nurse care seem to cost less but provide broadly similar health outcomes compared with rheumatologist outpatient care. However, it is still uncertain whether nurse care and shared care are cost-effective in comparison with rheumatologist outpatient care.

General clinical practice getting the intermittent catheter the patient needs: considerations in coding, coverage, and documentation.

Nurses with knowledge of catheter features, the Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System (HCPCS), reimbursement guidelines, and proper documentation will have the essential information needed to ensure that patients performing intermittent self-catheterization receive the right products.

Strategies to reduce treatment costs of peristomal skin complications.

Peristomal skin complications (PSCs) are common and troublesome and the consequences are substantial both for the patient and from a health-economic viewpoint. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that early detection and treatment of PSCs, combined with the use of a correctly fitted and appropriate pouching system, can reduce treatment costs-in the UK, it is estimated to save £28.1m annually. A model for cost estimation of PSCs and a real-life global data set of people with stomas are used for the calculations. A high priority should be given to ensuring resources are available to provide education, guidance and assistance to people with a stoma. This would support increased awareness of the first signs of PSCs and enable self-management at an early stage.

Managing a pessary business.

In this final article in a series of three, components of pessary fitting, provision, and follow up are reviewed from a business perspective related to supplies, patient flow, billing, and coding.

An indispensible role.

Freezing the vacant posts of diabetes nurse specialists is affecting patient care and will cost the NHS more in the long run, warns a major charity.

A special relationship.

Nurse specialists can make a world of difference to patients with rare diseases, who otherwise can struggle to get an accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

A nursing pilot study on bedside reporting to promote best practice and patient/family-centered care.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bedside nursing report implementation on a pediatric neuroscience unit. BACKGROUND: The change-of-shift nursing report often involves only nurse-to-nurse communication, occurs far away from the patient's bedside, and includes little or no patient/family involvement. Studies show that the bedside nursing report is a more comprehensive and patient-centered approach (C. D. Anderson & R. R. Mangino, 2006). METHODS: Patient and nurse satisfaction and nursing overtime were measured 6 months before and 6 months after the implementation of bedside reporting. Data were analyzed using paired t test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact tests to determine significant changes. RESULTS: Patients, families, and nurses reported an increase in satisfaction after the implementation of bedside reporting. Overtime decreased and represented a potential cost savings of nearly $13,000 annually. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside reporting saves money, improves patient and nurse satisfaction, and is a more comprehensive approach to change-of-shift reporting.