Inpatient long-term video-electroencephalographic monitoring event capture audiovisual diagnostic quality.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term video-electroencephalographic monitoring (LTVEM) represents the gold-standard method to evaluate whether events represent electrographic seizures, but limited work has evaluated the quality of inpatient event capture. We evaluated the frequency of audiovisual factors impairing the ideal electroclinical correlation of seizure-like episodes during LTVEM. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive inpatient LTVEM studies (11/2019-12/2019) from three academic epilepsy centers. We evaluated all pushbutton events for audiovisual characteristics such as whether the event was narrated, whether the patient was blocked on camera, and what diagnostic challenges impaired the electroencephalographer's ability to understand either the reason the event button was pushed or clinical semiology ("electroclinical correlation"). We determined the percent of events and studies with each outcome. RESULTS: There were 154 studies with 520 pushbutton events. The pushbutton was most commonly activated by patients (41%), followed by nurses (31%) or family (17%). Twenty-nine percent of events represented electrographic seizures, and 78% occurred in the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit. The reason for the push was not stated in 45% of events, and inadequate narration impaired electroclinical correlation in 19% of events. At least one relevant part of the patient's body was blocked during 12% of events, but this impaired electroclinical correlation in only 1% of events. There was at least one factor impairing electroclinical correlation in 21% of events, most commonly due to incomplete narration (N = 99), lights off (N = 15), or blankets covering the patient (N = 15). At least one factor impaired electroclinical correlation for any event in 36% of studies. CONCLUSION: Audiovisual factors impairing the electroencephalographer's ability to render an electroclinical correlation were common, particularly related to inadequate narration from bedside observers to explain the reason for pushing the button or event semiology. Future efforts to develop targeted countermeasures should address narration challenges and improve inpatient seizure monitoring quality metrics.

Depression and suicidality among Hispanics with epilepsy: Findings from the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Network integrated database.

OBJECTIVE: Although psychiatric disorders are more common among people with epilepsy,2 depression and suicidal ideation among Hispanics with epilepsy remain understudied. We examined the prevalence and correlates of depression and suicidal ideation among Hispanic adults with epilepsy who participated in self-management studies in the Managing Epilepsy Well3 Network. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis of pooled data from ten studies used the Patient Health Questionnaire-94 or Neurological Disease Depression Inventory-Epilepsy5 to examine the prevalence of elevated depressive symptoms (PHQ ≥ 10, NDDI-E ≥ 15) and suicidal ideation (PHQ-9 item 9 ≥ 1, NDDI-E item 4 ≥ 2). Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models examined associations between ethnicity, elevated depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation among PWE. Secondary analyses examined correlates of elevated depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation among Hispanic PWE. RESULTS: Of 559 participants, 49.6% (n = 277) were Hispanic. Elevated depressive symptoms were endorsed by 38.1% (n = 213) of all participants (32.5% of Hispanics); suicidal ideation was endorsed by 18.4% (n = 103) of all participants (16.3% of Hispanics). After adjustment for sociodemographic and health attributes, Hispanic PWE had a 44% lower prevalence of elevated depressive symptoms (OR = 0.56, CI 0.37-0.84, p = 0.0056) compared to non-Hispanics but similar rates of suicidal ideation (OR = 0.84, CI 0.45-1.58, p = 0.59). Acculturation measures were available for 256 (92.4%) of Hispanic PWE: language preference was Spanish for 62.9%, 46.1% were foreign-born. Spanish-speaking Hispanics were less likely than English-speaking Hispanics to report elevated depressive symptoms (OR = 0.43, CI 0.19-0.97, p = 0.041); however, Hispanics who reported fair or poor health status had a four-fold higher depression prevalence compared to those who reported excellent or very good health status [reference group] (OR = 4.44, CI 1.50-13.18, p = 0.0071). Of the Hispanics who provided prior 30-day seizure data, ≥1 monthly seizure was independently associated with higher depression prevalence (OR = 3.11, CI 1.29-7.45, p = 0.01). Being foreign-born was not associated with elevated depressive symptoms or suicidal ideation prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, geographically diverse sample of PWE, elevated depressive symptoms were significantly lower in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics. Spanish language preference was associated with a lower prevalence of elevated depressive symptoms among Hispanic PWE. Future studies should include acculturation data to better screen for depression and suicidal ideation risk and optimize interventions for Hispanic PWE.

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.