Seizure · 2022
Audit of epilepsy healthcare provision in a large UK category B prison.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thomasson Rachel, Coyle Helen, Reynolds Lorraine, Lees Alison, Partington Lindsey, Cooper Paul
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We reviewed all prisoners diagnosed with epilepsy within a large UK category B prison: collecting demographic information and the prevalence and nature of their seizure disorder; and reviewed standards of their epilepsy healthcare provision. Previous work has highlighted poorer seizure control and limited access to specialist services in this patient group.
METHODS: Fifty-five male prisoners with a previously established diagnosis of epilepsy were identified by the prison healthcare manager during the six-month audit period. Anonymised audit data was collected during clinical interviews undertaken by members of a regional specialist epilepsy service and recorded on a standardised proforma. Data collection occurred during six prison visits within the audit period.
RESULTS: Point prevalence of epilepsy was 2%. Data suggest that demographics are complex and challenging in this patient group. We found increased rates of alcohol (40%) and drug (82%) misuse and mental health problems (85.5%). Just over one third of cases were prescribed medications with potential for misuse (diversion). Further optimization of anti-seizure medication (ASM) regimens was required in 67.3% of the study sample, with only 12.7% of cases being free of seizures for the last 12 months. Access to specialist epilepsy services was limited; only 38.2% had a specialist review in the last 12 months. Most cases (76.4%) did not recall receiving guidance on precautions that should be taken regarding duties or cell arrangements in relation to having a diagnosis of epilepsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Tighter collaboration between prison healthcare and local NHS specialist services is recommended to optimise epilepsy healthcare in UK prison settings.
METHODS: Fifty-five male prisoners with a previously established diagnosis of epilepsy were identified by the prison healthcare manager during the six-month audit period. Anonymised audit data was collected during clinical interviews undertaken by members of a regional specialist epilepsy service and recorded on a standardised proforma. Data collection occurred during six prison visits within the audit period.
RESULTS: Point prevalence of epilepsy was 2%. Data suggest that demographics are complex and challenging in this patient group. We found increased rates of alcohol (40%) and drug (82%) misuse and mental health problems (85.5%). Just over one third of cases were prescribed medications with potential for misuse (diversion). Further optimization of anti-seizure medication (ASM) regimens was required in 67.3% of the study sample, with only 12.7% of cases being free of seizures for the last 12 months. Access to specialist epilepsy services was limited; only 38.2% had a specialist review in the last 12 months. Most cases (76.4%) did not recall receiving guidance on precautions that should be taken regarding duties or cell arrangements in relation to having a diagnosis of epilepsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Tighter collaboration between prison healthcare and local NHS specialist services is recommended to optimise epilepsy healthcare in UK prison settings.