An algorithm for the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale assessment: A multicenter, two-arm and cluster randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a validated tool for assessing stroke severity, increasingly used by general practitioners in telemedicine services. Mobile apps may enhance its reliability. We aim to validate a digital platform (SPOKES) for NIHSS assessment in telemedicine and healthcare settings. METHODS: Hospitals using a telemedicine service were randomly allocated to control or SPOKES-user groups. The discrepancy between the NIHSS scores reported and those confirmed by experts was evaluated. Healthcare providers from comprehensive stroke centers were invited for interrater validation. Participants were randomized to assess the NIHSS using videos of real patients. Weighted Kappa (wk) statistics analyzed the agreement, and logistic regression determined the correlation with the congruency. RESULTS: A total of 299 telemedicine consultations from 12 hospitals were included. The difference between the NIHSS scores reported and double-checked was lower in the SPOKES group (p = 0.03), with a significantly higher level of complete agreement (72.5 % vs. 50.4 %, p = 0.005). Adoption of SPOKES was associated with complete congruency (OR 4.01, 95 %CI 1.42-11.35, p = 0.009). For interrater validation, 20 participants were considered. In the SPOKES group, almost-perfect and strong agreement occurred in 13.3 %(n = 6/45) and 84.4 %(n = 38/45) of ratings, respectively; in the control group, 6.7 %(n = 3/45) were almost-perfect, 28.9 %(n = 13/45) strong and 51 %(n = 23/45) were minimal. CONCLUSION: A free and reliable mobile application for NIHSS assessment can significantly improve interrater agreement between healthcare professionals, and between NIHSS-certified neurologists and general practitioners. Our results underscore the importance of ongoing training and education in enhancing the consistency and reliability of NIHSS scores.

cEEG electrode-related pressure ulcers in acutely hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers resulting from continuous EEG (cEEG) monitoring in hospitalized patients have gained attention as a preventable medical complication. We measured their incidence and risk factors. METHODS: We performed an observational investigation of cEEG-electrode-related pressure ulcers (EERPU) among acutely ill patients over a 22-month period. Variables analyzed included age, sex, monitoring duration, hospital location, application methods, vasopressor usage, nutritional status, skin allergies, fever, and presence/severity of EERPU. We examined risk for pressure ulcers vs monitoring duration using Kaplan-Meyer survival analysis, and performed multivariate risk assessment using Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Among 1,519 patients, EERPU occurred in 118 (7.8%). Most (n = 109, 92.3%) consisted of hyperemia only without skin breakdown. A major predictor was monitoring duration, with 3-, 5-, and 10-day risks of 16%, 32%, and 60%, respectively. Risk factors included older age (mean age 60.65 vs 50.3, p < 0.01), care in an intensive care unit (9.37% vs 5.32%, p < 0.01), lack of a head wrap (8.31% vs 27.3%, p = 0.02), use of vasopressors (16.7% vs 9.64%, p < 0.01), enteral feeding (11.7% vs 5.45%, p = 0.04), and fever (18.4% vs 9.3%, p < 0.01). Elderly patients (71-80 years) were at higher risk (hazard ratio 6.84 [1.95-24], p < 0.01), even after accounting for monitoring time and other pertinent variables in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: EERPU are uncommon and generally mild. Elderly patients and those with more severe illness have higher risk of developing EERPU, and the risk increases as a function of monitoring duration.

Association between addressing antiseizure drug side effects and patient-reported medication adherence in epilepsy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Adherence to treatment is a critical component of epilepsy management. This study examines whether addressing antiepileptic drug (AED) side effects at every visit is associated with increased patient-reported medication adherence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study identified 243 adults with epilepsy who were seen at two academic outpatient neurology settings and had at least two visits over a 3-year period. Demographic and clinical characteristics were abstracted. Evidence that AED side effects were addressed was measured through 1) phone interview (patient-reported) and 2) medical records abstraction (physician-documented). Medication adherence was assessed using the validated Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-4. Complete adherence was determined as answering "no" to all questions. RESULTS: Sixty-two (25%) patients completed the interviews. Participants and nonparticipants were comparable with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics; however, a smaller proportion of participants had a history of drug-resistant epilepsy than nonparticipants (17.7% vs 30.9%, P=0.04). Among the participants, evidence that AED side effects were addressed was present in 48 (77%) medical records and reported by 51 (82%) patients. Twenty-eight (45%) patients reported complete medication adherence. The most common reason for incomplete adherence was missed medication due to forgetfulness (n=31, 91%). There was no association between addressing AED side effects (neither physician-documented nor patient-reported) and complete medication adherence (P=0.22 and 0.20). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Among patients with epilepsy, addressing medication side effects at every visit does not appear to increase patient-reported medication adherence.

Patient perceptions of physician-documented quality care in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare physician encounter documentation with patient perceptions of quality of epilepsy care and examine the association between quality and patient assessment of provider communication. METHODS: We identified 505 adult patients with epilepsy aged 18years or older over a 3-year period in two large academic medical centers. We abstracted individual, clinical, and care measures from 2723 electronic clinical notes written by physicians. We then randomly selected 245 patients for a phone interview. We compared patient perceptions of care with the documented care for several established epilepsy quality measures. We also explored the association of patient's perception of provider communication with provider documentation of key encounter interventions. RESULTS: There were 88 patients (36%) who completed the interviews. Fifty-seven (24%) refused to participate, and 100 (40%) could not be contacted. Participants and nonparticipants were comparable in their demographic and clinical characteristics; however, participants were more often seen by epilepsy specialists than nonparticipants (75% vs. 61.9%, p<0.01). Quality scores based on patient perceptions differed from those determined by assessing the documentation in the medical record for several quality measures, e.g., documentation of side effects of antiseizure therapy (p=0.05), safety counseling (p<0.01), and counseling for women of childbearing potential with epilepsy (McNemar's p=0.03; intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC=0.07). There was a significant, positive association between patient-reported counseling during the encounter (e.g., personalized safety counseling) and patient-reported scores of provider communication (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The association between the patient's recollection of counseling during the visit and his/her positive perception of the provider's communication skills highlights the importance of spending time counseling patients about their epilepsy and not just determining if seizures are controlled.