Advertisement

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

Published:October 20, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2022.108947

      Highlights

      • We reviewed 520 pushbutton events from 154 long-term video-electroencephalographic studies.
      • Audiovisual factors impaired electroclinical correlation in 21% of events and 36% of studies.
      • Inadequate narration was the most common impairing factor.
      • Our work identifies opportunities to improve diagnostic event capture.

      Abstract

      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.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Epilepsy & Behavior
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Tatum W.O.
        • Mani J.
        • Jin K.
        • Halford J.J.
        • Gloss D.
        • Fahoum F.
        • et al.
        Minimum standards for inpatient long-term video-electroencephalographic monitoring: a clinical practice guideline of the International League Against Epilepsy and International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.
        Epilepsia. 2022; 63: 290-315https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.16977
        • Kinney M.O.
        • Kovac S.
        • Diehl B.
        Structured testing during seizures: a practical guide for assessing and interpreting ictal and postictal signs during video EEG long term monitoring.
        Seizure Eur J Epilepsy. 2019; 72: 13-22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2019.08.008
        • O'Kula S.S.
        • Faillace L.
        • Kulick-Soper C.V.
        • Reyes-Esteves S.
        • Raab J.
        • Davis K.A.
        • et al.
        Developing and implementing a standardized ictal examination in the epilepsy monitoring unit.
        Neurol Clin Pr. 2021; 11: 127-133https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000815
        • Ryvlin P.
        • Nashef L.
        • Lhatoo S.D.
        • Bateman L.M.
        • Bird J.
        • Bleasel A.
        • et al.
        Incidence and mechanisms of cardiorespiratory arrests in epilepsy monitoring units (MORTEMUS): a retrospective study.
        Lancet Neurol. 2013; 12: 966-977https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70214-X
        • Sauro K.M.
        • Wiebe N.
        • Macrodimitris S.
        • Wiebe S.
        • Lukmanji S.
        • Jetté N.
        Quality and safety in adult epilepsy monitoring units: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Epilepsia. 2016; 57: 1754-1770https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13564
        • Shafer P.O.
        • Buelow J.M.
        • Noe K.
        • Shinnar R.
        • Dewar S.
        • Levisohn P.M.
        • et al.
        A consensus-based approach to patient safety in epilepsy monitoring units: recommendations for preferred practices.
        Epilepsy Behav. 2012; 25: 449-456https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.07.014
        • Spanaki M.V.
        • McCloskey C.
        • Remedio V.
        • Budzyn D.
        • Guanio J.
        • Monroe T.
        • et al.
        Developing a culture of safety in the epilepsy monitoring unit: a retrospective study of safety outcomes.
        Epilepsy Behav. 2012; 25: 185-188https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.06.028
        • Spritzer S.D.
        • Riordan K.C.
        • Berry J.
        • Corbett B.M.
        • Gerke J.K.
        • Hoerth M.T.
        • et al.
        Fall prevention and bathroom safety in the epilepsy monitoring unit.
        Epilepsy Behav. 2015; 48: 75-78https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.05.026
        • Patel A.D.
        • Baca C.
        • Franklin G.
        • Herman S.T.
        • Hughes I.
        • Meunier L.
        • et al.
        Quality improvement in neurology Epilepsy Quality Measurement Set 2017 update.
        Neurology. 2018; 91: 829-836https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000006425
        • Sauro K.M.
        • Wiebe S.
        • Macrodimitris S.
        • Jetté N.
        Quality indicators for the adult epilepsy monitoring unit.
        Epilepsia. 2016; 57: 1771-1778https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13563
        • Malloy K.
        • Cardenas D.
        • Blackburn A.
        • Whitmire L.
        • Cavazos J.E.
        Time to response and patient visibility during tonic–clonic seizures in the epilepsy monitoring unit.
        Epilepsy Behav. 2018; 89: 84-88https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.09.012
        • Labiner D.M.
        • Bagic A.I.
        • Herman S.T.
        • Fountain N.B.
        • Walczak T.S.
        • Gumnit R.J.
        Essential services, personnel, and facilities in specialized epilepsy centers-Revised 2010 guidelines.
        Epilepsia. 2010; 51: 2322-2333https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02648.x