Implementation of effective, self-sustaining headache services in the Republic of Georgia: Evaluation of their impact on headache-related disability and quality of life of people with headache.

Background Headache disorders are widespread and disabling. They are common in Georgia, especially headache on ≥15 days/month (HA ≥ 15), but there are no headache services. Objective We established headache services meeting local needs, investigating feasibility, consumer uptake and satisfaction, and cost, with an exit strategy bequeathing effective, self-sustaining services that could be rolled out nationwide. Methods We created headache centres in Tbilisi and Gori offering free expert care for three visits over three months, and affordable medication thereafter. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients using the service beyond the free period - a measure of both satisfaction and sustainability. Results Of 1,445 patients (age 43.7 ± 12.4 years; 10.5% male), 49.8% had episodic migraine, 22.5% episodic tension-type headache, 25.7% HA ≥ 15 (24.5% overusing medication) and 2.0% trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. Only 454 (31.4%) and 51 (3.5%) returned for second and third visits; in these, headache improved and treatment costs decreased. As information about the service spread, five other headache clinics opened in Tbilisi and Kutaisi (western Georgia). Pharmaceutical companies reduced prices (sumatriptan 100 mg from US$7 to US$1). Conclusion The study failed to achieve its primary outcome, but sustainable headache services operating to international standards were successfully implemented nonetheless, with demand increasing.

Poor medical care for people with migraine in Europe - evidence from the Eurolight study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is prevalent everywhere, and disabling. It is also neglected: consequently, it is under-diagnosed and undertreated. We analysed data from the Eurolight study on consultations and utilization of migraine-specific medications as indicators of adequacy of medical care in Europe. METHODS: Eurolight was a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey in 10 European countries. Sampling was population-based in six (Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain) and from consecutive patients attending general practitioners (GPs) for any reason in three (Austria, France, UK). Additional samples in Netherlands and Spain, and the only sample from Ireland, were recruited by lay headache organisations. We recorded migraine prevalence and frequency, and utilization of medical services and medications (acute and preventative). RESULTS: Among 9247 participants (mean age 43.9 ± 13.9 years, M/F ratio 1:1.4), 3466 (37.6%) were diagnosed with migraine (definite or probable). Of these, 1175 (33.8%) reported frequent migraine (> 5 days/month) and might clearly expect benefit from, and therefore had need of, preventative medication. In population-based samples, minorities of participants with migraine had seen a GP (9.5-18.0%) or specialist (3.1-15.0%), and smaller minorities received adequate treatment: triptans 3.4-11.0%, with Spain outlying at 22.4%; preventative medication (1.6-6.4% of those eligible, with Spain again outlying at 13.7%). Proportions were greater in GP-based samples (13.6-24.5% using triptans, 4.4-9.1% on preventative medication) and among those from lay organisations (46.2-68.2% and 16.0-41.7%). Participants with migraine who had consulted specialists (3.1-33.8%) were receiving the best care by these indicators; those treated by GPs (9.5-29.6%) fared less well, and those dependent on self-medication (48.0-84.2%) were, apparently, inadequately treated. CONCLUSION: In wealthy European countries, too few people with migraine consult physicians, with proportionately too many of these seeing specialists, and migraine-specific medications are used inadequately even among those who do. These findings represent yet another call for action in Europe to improve care for people with headache. Education of both health-care providers and the public should be central to this action.

Headache service quality: evaluation of quality indicators in 14 specialist-care centres.

BACKGROUND: The study was a collaboration between Lifting The Burden (LTB) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). Its aim was to evaluate the implementation of quality indicators for headache care Europe-wide in specialist headache centres (level-3 according to the EHF/LTB standard). METHODS: Employing previously-developed instruments in 14 such centres, we made enquiries, in each, of health-care providers (doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists) and 50 patients, and analysed the medical records of 50 other patients. Enquiries were in 9 domains: diagnostic accuracy, individualized management, referral pathways, patient's education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient's satisfaction, equity and efficiency of the headache care, outcome assessment and safety. RESULTS: Our study showed that highly experienced headache centres treated their patients in general very well. The centres were content with their work and their patients were content with their treatment. Including disability and quality-of-life evaluations in clinical assessments, and protocols regarding safety, proved problematic: better standards for these are needed. Some centres had problems with follow-up: many specialised centres operated in one-touch systems, without possibility of controlling long-term management or the success of treatments dependent on this. CONCLUSIONS: This first Europe-wide quality study showed that the quality indicators were workable in specialist care. They demonstrated common trends, producing evidence of what is majority practice. They also uncovered deficits that might be remedied in order to improve quality. They offer the means of setting benchmarks against which service quality may be judged. The next step is to take the evaluation process into non-specialist care (EHF/LTB levels 1 and 2).