Survey of Continuous EEG Monitoring Practices in the United States.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Gina Kayal, Kristen N Oliveira, Zulfi Haneef
{"title":"Survey of Continuous EEG Monitoring Practices in the United States.","authors":"Gina Kayal, Kristen N Oliveira, Zulfi Haneef","doi":"10.1097/WNP.0000000000001099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Continuous EEG (cEEG) practice has markedly changed over the last decade given its utility in improving critical care outcomes. However, there are limited data describing the current cEEG infrastructure in US hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A web-based cEEG practice survey was sent to neurophysiologists at 123 ACGME-accredited epilepsy or clinical neurophysiology programs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Neurophysiologists from 100 (81.3%) institutions completed the survey. Most institutions had 3 to 10 EEG faculty (80.0%), 1 to 5 fellows (74.8%), ≥6 technologists (84.9%), and provided coverage to neurology ICUs with >10 patients (71.0%) at a time. Round-the-clock EEG technologist coverage was available at most (90.0%) institutions with technologists mostly being in-house (68.0%). Most institutions without after-hours coverage (8 of 10) attributed this to insufficient technologists. The typical monitoring duration was 24 to 48 hours (23.0 and 40.0%), most commonly for subclinical seizures (68.4%) and spell characterization (11.2%). Larger neurology ICUs had more EEG technologists ( p = 0.02), fellows ( p = 0.001), and quantitative EEG use ( p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This survey explores current cEEG practice patterns in the United States. Larger centers had more technologists and fellows. Overall technologist numbers are stable over time, but with a move toward more in-hospital compared with home-based coverage. Reduced availability of EEG technologists was a major factor limiting cEEG availability at some centers.</p>","PeriodicalId":15516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000001099","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Continuous EEG (cEEG) practice has markedly changed over the last decade given its utility in improving critical care outcomes. However, there are limited data describing the current cEEG infrastructure in US hospitals.

Methods: A web-based cEEG practice survey was sent to neurophysiologists at 123 ACGME-accredited epilepsy or clinical neurophysiology programs.

Results: Neurophysiologists from 100 (81.3%) institutions completed the survey. Most institutions had 3 to 10 EEG faculty (80.0%), 1 to 5 fellows (74.8%), ≥6 technologists (84.9%), and provided coverage to neurology ICUs with >10 patients (71.0%) at a time. Round-the-clock EEG technologist coverage was available at most (90.0%) institutions with technologists mostly being in-house (68.0%). Most institutions without after-hours coverage (8 of 10) attributed this to insufficient technologists. The typical monitoring duration was 24 to 48 hours (23.0 and 40.0%), most commonly for subclinical seizures (68.4%) and spell characterization (11.2%). Larger neurology ICUs had more EEG technologists ( p = 0.02), fellows ( p = 0.001), and quantitative EEG use ( p = 0.001).

Conclusions: This survey explores current cEEG practice patterns in the United States. Larger centers had more technologists and fellows. Overall technologist numbers are stable over time, but with a move toward more in-hospital compared with home-based coverage. Reduced availability of EEG technologists was a major factor limiting cEEG availability at some centers.

美国连续脑电图监测实践调查。
目的:鉴于连续脑电图(cEEG)在改善重症监护效果方面的作用,过去十年间连续脑电图(cEEG)实践发生了显著变化。然而,描述美国医院当前 cEEG 基础设施的数据非常有限:方法:向 123 个经 ACGME 认证的癫痫或临床神经生理学项目的神经电生理学家发送了一份基于网络的 cEEG 实践调查:来自 100 家(81.3%)机构的神经电生理学家完成了调查。大多数机构拥有 3 至 10 名脑电图教师(80.0%)、1 至 5 名研究员(74.8%)、≥ 6 名技术员(84.9%),并为同时收治 >10 名患者(71.0%)的神经内科 ICU 提供服务。大多数医疗机构(90.0%)都有全天候的脑电图技术人员,技术人员多为内部人员(68.0%)。大多数未提供下班后服务的机构(10 家中有 8 家)将此归咎于技术人员不足。典型的监测持续时间为 24 至 48 小时(23.0% 和 40.0%),最常见于亚临床癫痫发作(68.4%)和拼写特征描述(11.2%)。规模较大的神经内科 ICU 有更多的脑电图技师(P = 0.02)、研究员(P = 0.001),并使用定量脑电图(P = 0.001):这项调查探讨了美国目前的脑电图实践模式。规模较大的中心拥有更多的技师和研究员。随着时间的推移,技术人员的总体数量趋于稳定,但与家庭覆盖相比,院内覆盖更多。脑电图技术人员的减少是限制某些中心提供 cEEG 的主要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.20%
发文量
198
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology features both topical reviews and original research in both central and peripheral neurophysiology, as related to patient evaluation and treatment. Official Journal of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信