This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
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.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
Editorial, page 95
- Received August 29, 2019.
- Accepted November 23, 2019.
- © 2020 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
- Author response: Developing and implementing a standardized ictal examination in the epilepsy monitoring unit
- Reader response: Developing and implementing a standardized ictal examination in the epilepsy monitoring unit
NOTE: All contributors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.cp.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.