Objectives: Seizure action plans help patients and caregivers better self-manage their epilepsy. We hypothesized that providing pediatric patients and their caregivers with a seizure action plan would reduce unplanned health care utilization and decrease the impact of epilepsy. Methods: We developed a seizure action plan for use in pediatric epilepsy patients. A prospective cohort was randomly assigned to receive a seizure action plan in addition to standard epilepsy care or to standard epilepsy care alone. All caregivers were surveyed using the Modified Impact on Families (MIF) questionnaire at enrollment, 3 months, and 12 months. Health care utilization measures and Modified Impact on Families questionnaire scores were compared between the 2 groups. Results: Fifty-four patients received a seizure action plan and standard care, whereas 48 received standard care alone. The groups had similar demographics. There was a significantly higher proportion of overall clinic appointment no shows in the standard care group vs the seizure action plan group ( P = .04); however, other significant differences in health care utilization were not found. Among patients with low seizure frequency (12 or fewer seizures per year), Seizure comfort scores on the Modified Impact on Families questionnaire were significantly higher at 12 months among the seizure action plan group compared to the standard care group. Significance: Caregivers for patients with epilepsy receiving a seizure action plan were more comfortable regarding seizure care and missed fewer appointments. However, differences in health care utilization were not present. The seizure action plan appears to have more impact in patients who experience lower seizure frequencies. Further studies evaluating the impact as well as assessing caregivers’ perceptions of the seizure action plan using a larger sample are needed.

No abstract

To investigate connections between patient demographics, health care utilization, prescription use, and refills for patients using intranasal midazolam, per rectum diazepam, or both. A retrospective cohort contained patients with epilepsy prescribed intranasal midazolam, per rectum diazepam, or both. We analyzed number of emergency department visits, ambulance services, urgent care visits, and unplanned hospitalizations. A total of 5458 patients were identified. Patients on intranasal midazolam had on average 1.53 fewer emergency department visits (95% confidence interval 1.16-1.89, P < .0001), 0.29 fewer uses of ambulance services (95% confidence interval 0.17-0.41, P < .0001), and 0.60 fewer urgent care visits (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.83, P < .0001) compared to patients in the per rectum diazepam group. Patients with commercial insurance were more likely to have intranasal midazolam prescription (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.42-2.11, P < .0001). The results substantiate the cost-effective benefits of prescribing intranasal midazolam compared to per rectum diazepam because several aspects of health care utilization were decreased in those using intranasal midazolam.

No abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a pediatric epilepsy care management intervention on emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and seizure freedom. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study at a single academic medical center. Children with epilepsy with high risk of frequent emergency department use were enrolled in the intervention from January through May 2015, which included a baseline visit and follow-up support from a care management team. Controls selected from the same institution received standard of care. Baseline and follow-up information were collected from electronic health records and surveys (Family Impact Scale, Pediatric Epilepsy Medication Self-Management Questionnaire). Propensity score–weighted logistic regression compared emergency department visits, unplanned hospitalizations, and 3-month seizure freedom after 1 year in the intervention vs control groups. Results: A total of 56 children were enrolled in the intervention and 359 received standard of care. The intervention group was younger and had greater use of health services at baseline. When comparing the intervention to standard of care after 1 year, we found no significant difference in the risk of any emergency department visit (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-8.5) or seizure freedom (adjusted OR 2.5, 95% CI 0.3-21.5). However, the risk of unplanned hospital admissions remained higher in the intervention group (adjusted OR 23.1, 95% CI 5.1-104). Conclusion: We did not find that children with epilepsy who received a care management intervention had less use of health services or better clinical outcomes after a year compared with controls. The study is limited by small sample size and nonrandomized study design.