K M Pearce1, H R Cock. 1. St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 ORE, UK. m0100440@sgul.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether electroencephalogram (EEG) requests at St George's Hospital (SGH) are being made according to clinical guideline recommendations. METHODS: A retrospective audit at a regional neurology and neurosurgery referral centre, also serving a district population. All adult National Health Service patients undergoing standard EEG between 1st November 2003 and 31st January 2004, for whom the request originated within the hospital, were identified. Data was collected from each subject's case notes, request form and EEG report and compared to predetermined criteria. RESULTS: Fifty sets of notes from ninety patients meeting the inclusion criteria were available for review. Twenty-six percent of requests were considered 'inappropriate', with respect to clinical guidelines, of which 92% were for 'funny turns' where there appeared to be insufficient clinical evidence to justify the request. The EEG contributed to diagnosis or management in only 22% of cases, all of which had been appropriately requested. Neurologists/epileptologists appeared better than non-specialists in terms of appropriateness of referrals, though the numbers were too small to reach significance (p = 0.173, Fisher's exact). Forty-two percent of all patients, and less than 10% of outpatients, had their EEG within the guideline target wait of 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Over a quarter of EEG referrals are not being made in accordance with guidelines, mainly because of the misconception that an EEG can confirm or exclude a diagnosis of epilepsy in patients with "funny turns". In addition, less than 10% of out patient requests are being met within 4 weeks. Strategies to maximise service utilisation are discussed.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether electroencephalogram (EEG) requests at St George's Hospital (SGH) are being made according to clinical guideline recommendations. METHODS: A retrospective audit at a regional neurology and neurosurgery referral centre, also serving a district population. All adult National Health Service patients undergoing standard EEG between 1st November 2003 and 31st January 2004, for whom the request originated within the hospital, were identified. Data was collected from each subject's case notes, request form and EEG report and compared to predetermined criteria. RESULTS: Fifty sets of notes from ninety patients meeting the inclusion criteria were available for review. Twenty-six percent of requests were considered 'inappropriate', with respect to clinical guidelines, of which 92% were for 'funny turns' where there appeared to be insufficient clinical evidence to justify the request. The EEG contributed to diagnosis or management in only 22% of cases, all of which had been appropriately requested. Neurologists/epileptologists appeared better than non-specialists in terms of appropriateness of referrals, though the numbers were too small to reach significance (p = 0.173, Fisher's exact). Forty-two percent of all patients, and less than 10% of outpatients, had their EEG within the guideline target wait of 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Over a quarter of EEG referrals are not being made in accordance with guidelines, mainly because of the misconception that an EEG can confirm or exclude a diagnosis of epilepsy in patients with "funny turns". In addition, less than 10% of out patient requests are being met within 4 weeks. Strategies to maximise service utilisation are discussed.