We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Historically, epilepsy care has been documented as poor. The New Contract introduced epilepsy as a quality indicator from April 2004.
Aim
To measure the unmet clinical needs in patients with epilepsy, following an audit, with educational intervention and the introduction of the New Contract.
Design
Prospective audit.
Setting
Thirteen general practices (population 68 240).
Methods
The case notes of 388 patients receiving treatment for epilepsy were reviewed in the two years before, and four years after, the introduction of the New Contract in April 2004. An intervention took place, which consisted of (a) a letter to each practice summarising the main findings; (b) the provision of a comprehensive template; (c) an individualised categorisation for each patient; (d) a single educational session led by a Neurologist with an interest in epilepsy in March 2004; and (e) the introduction of the New Contract in April 2004.
Results
The audit was completed in 267 cases. There was a significant increase in the annual review rate and documentation of seizure frequency. This happened after the New Contract was introduced, and has been sustained. The number of patients under shared care fell significantly from 22% to 16%. Thirty of the 62 (48%) patients with poor control were not receiving shared care. There were 13 referrals and 32 practice interventions related to the audit, with 39 positive outcomes. There was one death in a poorly controlled patient who was not under shared care, nor had been seen regularly by their general practitioner.
Conclusion
The unmet needs of some patients were highlighted by the audit resulting in appropriate management of these patients. However, despite the significantly improved review rates in primary care, and the availability of specialist services locally, we remain concerned about the proportion of patients with refractory epilepsy who do not seem to be receiving coordinated shared care.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.