"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.

Comparing Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Epilepsy: EQ-5D-3L and NEWQOL-6D.

BACKGROUND: There is debate about the psychometric characteristics of the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) for use in epilepsy. In response to the concerns, an epilepsy-specific preference-based measure (NEWQOL-6D) was developed. The psychometric characteristics of the NEWQOL-6D, however, have not been assessed. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and the Quality of Life in Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy Instrument-six dimensions (NEWQOL-6D) for use in the assessment of treatments for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: The analysis used data from the Standard And New Antiepileptic Drugs trial including patients with focal epilepsy. We assessed convergent validity using correlations, and known-group validity across different epilepsy and general health severity indicators using analysis of variance and effect sizes. The responsiveness of the measures to change over time was assessed using standardized response means. We also assessed agreement between the measures. RESULTS: There was some level of convergence and agreement between the measures in terms of utility score but divergence in the concepts measured by the descriptive systems. Both instruments displayed known-group validity, with significant differences between severity groups, and generally slightly larger effect sizes for the NEWQOL-6D across the epilepsy-specific indicators. Evidence for responsiveness was less clear, with small to moderate standardized response means demonstrating different levels of change across different indicators. CONCLUSIONS: There was an overall tendency for the NEWQOL-6D to better reflect differences across groups, but this does not translate into large absolute utility differences. Both the EQ-5D-3L and the NEWQOL-6D show some evidence of validity for providing utility values for economic evaluations in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

Seizure recurrence after antiepileptic drug withdrawal and the implications for driving: further results from the MRC Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study and a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, patients with epilepsy in remission, who withdraw antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment, are advised not to drive during withdrawal and for 6 months thereafter, assuming the risk of recurrence in the next 12 months is below 20%. Those with a seizure recurrence currently have to be seizure-free for 12 months before returning to drive, whether treatment is restarted or not. New EU regulations recommend returning to driving 3 months after restarting treatment. METHODS: Regression modelling of data from the Medical Research Council AED withdrawal study was undertaken to estimate the risk of seizure recurrence in the next 12 months at various time points following: completion of drug withdrawal; AED reinstatement for those with a recurrence. A systematic review of prospective studies was also undertaken. RESULTS: Immediately following treatment withdrawal, the recurrence risk in the next 12 months was 30% (95% CI 25% to 35%) and at 3 months after withdrawal was 15% (95% CI 10% to 19%). At 3 months following the recommencement of treatment following a seizure recurrence, the risk of a seizure in the next 12 months was 26% (95% CI 17% to 35%), at 6 months 18% (95% CI 10% to 27%) and at 12 months 17% (95% CI 3% to 27%). Systematic review results were similar. CONCLUSION: Current UK legislation concerning time off driving after withdrawing AED treatment may be too conservative. For those restarting treatment after a recurrence, current UK guidance may be too conservative but the new EU guidance too liberal.