Introduction

Critical Care Continuous EEG (CCEEG) is a common procedure to monitor brain function in patients with altered mental status in intensive care units. There is significant variability in patient populations undergoing CCEEG and in technical specifications for CCEEG performance.

Methods

The Critical Care Continuous EEG Task Force of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society developed expert consensus recommendations on the use of CCEEG in critically ill adults and children.

Recommendations

The consensus panel describes the qualifications and responsibilities of CCEEG personnel including neurodiagnostic technologists and interpreting physicians. The panel outlines required equipment for CCEEG, including electrodes, EEG machine and amplifier specifications, equipment for polygraphic data acquisition, EEG and video review machines, central monitoring equipment, and network, remote access, and data storage equipment. The consensus panel also describes how CCEEG should be acquired, reviewed and interpreted. The panel suggests methods for patient selection and triage; initiation of CCEEG; daily maintenance of CCEEG; electrode removal and infection control; quantitative EEG techniques; EEG and behavioral monitoring by non-physician personnel; review, interpretation, and reports; and data storage protocols.

Conclusion

Recommended qualifications for CCEEG personnel and CCEEG technical specifications will facilitate standardization of this emerging technology.

Introduction

Critical Care Continuous EEG (CCEEG) is a common procedure to monitor brain function in patients with altered mental status in intensive care units. There is significant variability in patient populations undergoing CCEEG and in technical specifications for CCEEG performance.

Methods

The Critical Care Continuous EEG Task Force of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society developed expert consensus recommendations on the use of CCEEG in critically ill adults and children.

Recommendations

The consensus panel recommends CCEEG for diagnosis of nonconvulsive seizures, nonconvulsive status epilepticus, and other paroxysmal events, and for assessment of the efficacy of therapy for seizures and status epilepticus. The consensus panel suggests CCEEG for identification of ischemia in patients at high risk for cerebral ischemia; for assessment of level of consciousness in patients receiving intravenous sedation or pharmacologically induced coma; and for prognostication in patients after cardiac arrest. For each indication, the consensus panel describes the patient populations for which CCEEG is indicated, evidence supporting use of CCEEG, utility of video and quantitative EEG trends, suggested timing and duration of CCEEG, and suggested frequency of review and interpretation.

Conclusion

CCEEG has an important role in detection of secondary injuries such as seizures and ischemia in critically ill adults and children with altered mental status.

Background

Epilepsy affects nearly 50 million people worldwide. Self-management is critical for individuals with epilepsy in order to maintain optimal physical, cognitive, and emotional health. Implementing and adopting a self-management program requires considering many factors at the person, program, and systems levels. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies to identify facilitators and barriers that impact implementation and adoption of self-management programs for adults with epilepsy.

Methods

We used established systematic review methodologies for qualitative and mixed-methods studies. We included studies addressing facilitators (i.e., factors that aided) or barriers (i.e., factors that impeded) to implementation and adoption of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. We conducted a narrative thematic synthesis to identify facilitators and barriers.

Results

The literature search identified 2700 citations; 13 studies met eligibility criteria. Our synthesis identified five themes that categorize facilitators and barriers to successful implementation epilepsy self-management: (1) relevance, intervention content that facilitates acquisition of self-management skills; (2) personalization, intervention components that account for the individual's social, physical, and environmental characteristics; (3) intervention components, components and dosing of the intervention; (4) technology considerations, considerations that account for individual's use, familiarity with, and ownership of technology; and (5) clinician interventionist, role and preparation of the individual who leads intervention. We identified facilitators in 11 of the 13 studies and barriers in 11 of the 13 studies and classified these by social-ecological level (i.e., patient/caregiver, program, site/system).

Conclusion

Identification of facilitators and barriers at multiple levels provides insight into disease-specific factors that influence implementation and adoption of self-management programs for individuals with epilepsy. Our findings indicate that involving individuals with epilepsy and their caregivers in intervention development, and then tailoring intervention content during the intervention, can help ensure the content is relevant to intervention participants. Our findings also indicate the role of the clinician (i.e., the individual who provides self-management education) is important to intervention implementation, and key issues with clinicians were identified as barriers and opportunities for improvement. Overall, our findings have practical value for those seeking to implement and adopt self-management interventions for epilepsy and other chronic illnesses.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO registration number is CRD42018098604.