Improving outcomes in adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability (EpAID) using a nurse-led intervention: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money. METHODS/DESIGN: The EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a 'treatment as usual' control or a 'defined epilepsy nurse role' active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants' carers are also undertaken. DISCUSSION: The EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013.Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation TrustThis is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1429-

Training nurses in a competency framework to support adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability: the EpAID cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. SETTING: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults aged 18-65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers' views of participants' epilepsy management. RESULTS: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval -0.554 to 7.307;p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members' perceptions of nurses' management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. LIMITATIONS: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. FUNDING: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programm

The impact of an epilepsy nurse competency framework on the costs of supporting adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability. Findings from the EpAID study.

Background: The development of a nurse-led approach to managing epilepsy in adults with an intellectual disability offers the potential of improved outcomes and lower costs of care. We undertook a cluster randomised trial to assess the impact on costs and outcomes of the provision of intellectual disability nurses working to a designated epilepsy nurse competency framework. Here, we report the impact of the intervention on costs. Method: Across the UK, 8 sites randomly allocated to the intervention recruited 184 participants, 9 sites allocated to treatment as usual recruited 128 participants. Cost and outcome data were collected mainly by telephone interview at baseline and after six months. Total costs at six months were compared from the perspective of health & social services, and society, with adjustments for pre-specified participant and cluster characteristics at baseline including costs. Missing data was imputed using Multiple Imputation. Uncertainty was quantified by bootstrapping. Results: The intervention was associated with lower per participant costs from a health & social services perspective of -£357 (2014/15 GBP) (95% CI -£986, £294) and from a societal perspective of -£631 (95% CI -£1,473, £181). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of accommodation costs. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the competency framework is unlikely to increase the cost of caring for people with epilepsy and intellectual disability and may reduce costs.This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant 10/104/16 PI Dr H Ring). During the time that this research was carried out, H Ring also received support from the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East of England at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust