Clinically unnecessary and avoidable emergency health service use for epilepsy: A survey of what English services are doing to reduce it

Epilepsy is associated with costly unplanned health service use. The UK’s National Audits of Seizure Management in Hospital found use was often clinically unnecessary, avoidable and typically led to little benefit for epilepsy management. We systematically identified how services have responded to r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Seizure (London, England) England), 2020-03, Vol.76, p.156-160
Hauptverfasser: Mathieson, Amy, Marson, Anthony G., Jackson, Mike, Ridsdale, Leone, Goodacre, Steve, Dickson, Jon M., Noble, Adam J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 160
container_issue
container_start_page 156
container_title Seizure (London, England)
container_volume 76
creator Mathieson, Amy
Marson, Anthony G.
Jackson, Mike
Ridsdale, Leone
Goodacre, Steve
Dickson, Jon M.
Noble, Adam J.
description Epilepsy is associated with costly unplanned health service use. The UK’s National Audits of Seizure Management in Hospital found use was often clinically unnecessary, avoidable and typically led to little benefit for epilepsy management. We systematically identified how services have responded to reduce such use. We invited England’s ambulance services, neuroscience and neurology centres and a random sample of Emergency Departments (EDs) to complete a survey. It asked what innovations they (or services they worked with) had made in the past 5 years or were making, the priority afforded to them, user involvement, what comprised usual practice, and barriers to change. 72/87 of invited (82.8 %) services responded. EDs ascribed less priority to reducing emergency hospital use for epilepsy and convulsions, than other service types. Overall, 60 % of services reported a change(s) and/or were planning one. Neurology/neuroscience sites (93.8 %) were most likely to report change; EDs (15.4 %) least likely. Eleven types of change were identified; 5 sought to promote proactive epilepsy care and avert the need for emergency care; 3 focused on the care received from emergency services; and 3 focused on follow-up care ED attendees received. Most were for those with established, rather than new epilepsy and targeted known limitations to current care provision. Reducing emergency hospital use by PWE is a high priority for most health services in England and a number of new services have been developed. However, they have not been consistently implemented and innovation is lacking in some areas of care.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.seizure.2020.02.012
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2364036844</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1059131120300534</els_id><sourcerecordid>2364036844</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-6c4a8ec772de014b987e9f71988e2cc848a2f836983c9d32a607c2d7f12d78e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUUuP0zAQthCIXRZ-AmiOXBL8SB2HC1pVy0NaiQucLdeetK7cpHiSrsIv4GfjVcteuczM4Xtovo-xt4LXggv9YV8Txt9zxlpyyWsuay7kM3YtVkpWUhvzvNx81VVCCXHFXhHtOeddI9RLdqUk76Ru22v2Z53iEL1LaYF5GNAjkcsLuCGAO40xuE1CwAPmLQ5-gR26NO2AMJ-iR5gJoR8z4DEmPNLyEW6B5nzCBcYeHnZugrthmyI9UQhcRghjHLYwjZAxzEUnTq_Zi94lwjeXfcN-fr77sf5a3X__8m19e1_5Rsip0r5xBn3byoBcNJvOtNj1reiMQem9aYyTvVG6M8p3QUmneetlaHtRhkGtbtj7s-4xj79mpMkeInlMyQ04zmSl0g1X2jRNga7OUJ9Hooy9PeZ4KOlYwe1jCXZvLyXYxxIsl7aUUHjvLhbz5oDhifUv9QL4dAZgefQUMVvyscSLIWb0ky3p_MfiLzSpnUM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2364036844</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinically unnecessary and avoidable emergency health service use for epilepsy: A survey of what English services are doing to reduce it</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Mathieson, Amy ; Marson, Anthony G. ; Jackson, Mike ; Ridsdale, Leone ; Goodacre, Steve ; Dickson, Jon M. ; Noble, Adam J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mathieson, Amy ; Marson, Anthony G. ; Jackson, Mike ; Ridsdale, Leone ; Goodacre, Steve ; Dickson, Jon M. ; Noble, Adam J.</creatorcontrib><description>Epilepsy is associated with costly unplanned health service use. The UK’s National Audits of Seizure Management in Hospital found use was often clinically unnecessary, avoidable and typically led to little benefit for epilepsy management. We systematically identified how services have responded to reduce such use. We invited England’s ambulance services, neuroscience and neurology centres and a random sample of Emergency Departments (EDs) to complete a survey. It asked what innovations they (or services they worked with) had made in the past 5 years or were making, the priority afforded to them, user involvement, what comprised usual practice, and barriers to change. 72/87 of invited (82.8 %) services responded. EDs ascribed less priority to reducing emergency hospital use for epilepsy and convulsions, than other service types. Overall, 60 % of services reported a change(s) and/or were planning one. Neurology/neuroscience sites (93.8 %) were most likely to report change; EDs (15.4 %) least likely. Eleven types of change were identified; 5 sought to promote proactive epilepsy care and avert the need for emergency care; 3 focused on the care received from emergency services; and 3 focused on follow-up care ED attendees received. Most were for those with established, rather than new epilepsy and targeted known limitations to current care provision. Reducing emergency hospital use by PWE is a high priority for most health services in England and a number of new services have been developed. However, they have not been consistently implemented and innovation is lacking in some areas of care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1059-1311</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-2688</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2020.02.012</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32092677</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Emergency care ; Epilepsy ; Innovations ; Service evaluation ; Survey</subject><ispartof>Seizure (London, England), 2020-03, Vol.76, p.156-160</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-6c4a8ec772de014b987e9f71988e2cc848a2f836983c9d32a607c2d7f12d78e63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-6c4a8ec772de014b987e9f71988e2cc848a2f836983c9d32a607c2d7f12d78e63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2020.02.012$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32092677$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mathieson, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marson, Anthony G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ridsdale, Leone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodacre, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dickson, Jon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noble, Adam J.</creatorcontrib><title>Clinically unnecessary and avoidable emergency health service use for epilepsy: A survey of what English services are doing to reduce it</title><title>Seizure (London, England)</title><addtitle>Seizure</addtitle><description>Epilepsy is associated with costly unplanned health service use. The UK’s National Audits of Seizure Management in Hospital found use was often clinically unnecessary, avoidable and typically led to little benefit for epilepsy management. We systematically identified how services have responded to reduce such use. We invited England’s ambulance services, neuroscience and neurology centres and a random sample of Emergency Departments (EDs) to complete a survey. It asked what innovations they (or services they worked with) had made in the past 5 years or were making, the priority afforded to them, user involvement, what comprised usual practice, and barriers to change. 72/87 of invited (82.8 %) services responded. EDs ascribed less priority to reducing emergency hospital use for epilepsy and convulsions, than other service types. Overall, 60 % of services reported a change(s) and/or were planning one. Neurology/neuroscience sites (93.8 %) were most likely to report change; EDs (15.4 %) least likely. Eleven types of change were identified; 5 sought to promote proactive epilepsy care and avert the need for emergency care; 3 focused on the care received from emergency services; and 3 focused on follow-up care ED attendees received. Most were for those with established, rather than new epilepsy and targeted known limitations to current care provision. Reducing emergency hospital use by PWE is a high priority for most health services in England and a number of new services have been developed. However, they have not been consistently implemented and innovation is lacking in some areas of care.</description><subject>Emergency care</subject><subject>Epilepsy</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Service evaluation</subject><subject>Survey</subject><issn>1059-1311</issn><issn>1532-2688</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUUuP0zAQthCIXRZ-AmiOXBL8SB2HC1pVy0NaiQucLdeetK7cpHiSrsIv4GfjVcteuczM4Xtovo-xt4LXggv9YV8Txt9zxlpyyWsuay7kM3YtVkpWUhvzvNx81VVCCXHFXhHtOeddI9RLdqUk76Ru22v2Z53iEL1LaYF5GNAjkcsLuCGAO40xuE1CwAPmLQ5-gR26NO2AMJ-iR5gJoR8z4DEmPNLyEW6B5nzCBcYeHnZugrthmyI9UQhcRghjHLYwjZAxzEUnTq_Zi94lwjeXfcN-fr77sf5a3X__8m19e1_5Rsip0r5xBn3byoBcNJvOtNj1reiMQem9aYyTvVG6M8p3QUmneetlaHtRhkGtbtj7s-4xj79mpMkeInlMyQ04zmSl0g1X2jRNga7OUJ9Hooy9PeZ4KOlYwe1jCXZvLyXYxxIsl7aUUHjvLhbz5oDhifUv9QL4dAZgefQUMVvyscSLIWb0ky3p_MfiLzSpnUM</recordid><startdate>20200301</startdate><enddate>20200301</enddate><creator>Mathieson, Amy</creator><creator>Marson, Anthony G.</creator><creator>Jackson, Mike</creator><creator>Ridsdale, Leone</creator><creator>Goodacre, Steve</creator><creator>Dickson, Jon M.</creator><creator>Noble, Adam J.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200301</creationdate><title>Clinically unnecessary and avoidable emergency health service use for epilepsy: A survey of what English services are doing to reduce it</title><author>Mathieson, Amy ; Marson, Anthony G. ; Jackson, Mike ; Ridsdale, Leone ; Goodacre, Steve ; Dickson, Jon M. ; Noble, Adam J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-6c4a8ec772de014b987e9f71988e2cc848a2f836983c9d32a607c2d7f12d78e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Emergency care</topic><topic>Epilepsy</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Service evaluation</topic><topic>Survey</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mathieson, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marson, Anthony G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ridsdale, Leone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodacre, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dickson, Jon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noble, Adam J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Seizure (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mathieson, Amy</au><au>Marson, Anthony G.</au><au>Jackson, Mike</au><au>Ridsdale, Leone</au><au>Goodacre, Steve</au><au>Dickson, Jon M.</au><au>Noble, Adam J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinically unnecessary and avoidable emergency health service use for epilepsy: A survey of what English services are doing to reduce it</atitle><jtitle>Seizure (London, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Seizure</addtitle><date>2020-03-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>76</volume><spage>156</spage><epage>160</epage><pages>156-160</pages><issn>1059-1311</issn><eissn>1532-2688</eissn><abstract>Epilepsy is associated with costly unplanned health service use. The UK’s National Audits of Seizure Management in Hospital found use was often clinically unnecessary, avoidable and typically led to little benefit for epilepsy management. We systematically identified how services have responded to reduce such use. We invited England’s ambulance services, neuroscience and neurology centres and a random sample of Emergency Departments (EDs) to complete a survey. It asked what innovations they (or services they worked with) had made in the past 5 years or were making, the priority afforded to them, user involvement, what comprised usual practice, and barriers to change. 72/87 of invited (82.8 %) services responded. EDs ascribed less priority to reducing emergency hospital use for epilepsy and convulsions, than other service types. Overall, 60 % of services reported a change(s) and/or were planning one. Neurology/neuroscience sites (93.8 %) were most likely to report change; EDs (15.4 %) least likely. Eleven types of change were identified; 5 sought to promote proactive epilepsy care and avert the need for emergency care; 3 focused on the care received from emergency services; and 3 focused on follow-up care ED attendees received. Most were for those with established, rather than new epilepsy and targeted known limitations to current care provision. Reducing emergency hospital use by PWE is a high priority for most health services in England and a number of new services have been developed. However, they have not been consistently implemented and innovation is lacking in some areas of care.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32092677</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.seizure.2020.02.012</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1059-1311
ispartof Seizure (London, England), 2020-03, Vol.76, p.156-160
issn 1059-1311
1532-2688
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2364036844
source ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Emergency care
Epilepsy
Innovations
Service evaluation
Survey
title Clinically unnecessary and avoidable emergency health service use for epilepsy: A survey of what English services are doing to reduce it
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T04%3A40%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinically%20unnecessary%20and%20avoidable%20emergency%20health%20service%20use%20for%20epilepsy:%20A%20survey%20of%20what%20English%20services%20are%20doing%20to%20reduce%20it&rft.jtitle=Seizure%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=Mathieson,%20Amy&rft.date=2020-03-01&rft.volume=76&rft.spage=156&rft.epage=160&rft.pages=156-160&rft.issn=1059-1311&rft.eissn=1532-2688&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.seizure.2020.02.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2364036844%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2364036844&rft_id=info:pmid/32092677&rft_els_id=S1059131120300534&rfr_iscdi=true