Seizure Identification on the Intensive Care Unit (ICU)

ConditionSeizures
Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
AgeNot listed
SponsorNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

About this trial

The aim of this project is to assess the ability of different groups of National Heath Service (NHS) professionals to correctly identify clinical seizures, and distinguish them from other movements commonly seen in the ICU environment, when shown digital video recordings only.

Patients on the ICU are at risk of having seizures, however also commonly make other movements, including shivering, jerking, tics and tremors. An Electroencephalogram (EEG) records the brain wave activity and can help distinguish epileptic seizures from other movements. In a study by Bendadis et al (2010), 52 video-EEGs were reviewed containing "possible seizures" on the ICU. They found only 27% recorded actual epileptic events, with the other 73% having a range of other movements. Malone et al (2009) studied accuracy of diagnosis of 20 video recordings of clinical episodes on the neonatal unit, comparing different staff groups. They found no significant difference between Doctors and Nurses in correctly identifying seizures, however found that accuracy of diagnosis was generally poor.

Clinical scientists are currently expanding their roles and responsibilities across Neurophysiology, including giving consultant-level advice on EEG investigations. EEG recordings on the ICU are often obscured by excessive, unavoidable electrical/movement artefacts caused by equipment such ventilators and pumps, and patient factors such as position, breathing artefact and suctioning. These make the EEG difficult to interpret (Boggs 2021). Assessing the clinical signs and symptoms which we may see in ICU patients, in the absence of interpretable EEG, is an essential skill.

This study aims to assess Clinical Scientists skills at clinical interpretation, in comparison with other staff groups in the ICU setting. Staff will be asked to watch video clips of events captured in the ICU, and tell us whether they think they are seizures or not, and explain their thought process behind the decision.

Eligibility criteria

This trial accepts healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Neurophysiology Scientists/Clinical Physiologists at Band 7 level and above,

Neurophysiologists who have completed the CCT in Neurophysiology with at least 1 year of Adult ICU experience.

members of the Neurology medical team with at least 1 years' experience of covering ITU

Intensivists with at least 1 year's experience working on the Adult intensive care unit

Disqualifiers

Staff not employed by NUH i.e. agency staff

Staff in other groups not mentioned above

Trial population

The study population are staff working in the Adult ICU at Nottingham University Hospitals, in one of the following groups; Neurophysiology Scientists/Clinical Physiologists, Neurophysiologists, Neurologists, Intensivists, Advanced Clinical Practitioners and Nursing Staff

Trial design

Design model

Case-control

Time perspective

Retrospective

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Clinical Opinion

    Other intervention

    Staff participants will be asked to review video clips of events captured during EEGs performed on the ICU and asked to state whether they think the event was an epileptic seizure or not, and what aspects of each event led them to that decision

Treatment groups

40 Participants
are divided into 6 treatment groups

6

Treatment groups

See each treatment group below.

Group A: Clinical Scientists1 intervention
Group B: Advanced Clinical Practitioners1 intervention
Group C: Intensivists1 intervention
Group D: Clinical Neurophysiologists1 intervention
Group E: Neurologists1 intervention
Group F: ICU Nurses1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Level of Agreement

The primary outcome measure is the level of agreement between the clinical opinion of the different staff groups and the EEG result

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year

Secondary outcomes

1

Interrater Reliability

The level of agreement between the different individuals in each staff group.

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year
2

Thematic Analysis

thematic analysis of the decision making process (based on the free text justifications for why individuals made the choice they did)

Time frame
through study completion, an average of 1 year

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.