Robertson, Carrie E

Objectives To develop neurology scenarios for use with the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool Revised (QIKAT-R), gather and evaluate validity evidence, and project the impact of scenario number, rater number and rater type on score reliability. Methods Six neurological case scenarios were developed. Residents were randomly assigned three scenarios before and after a quality improvement (QI) course in 2015 and 2016. For each scenario, residents crafted an aim statement, selected a measure and proposed a change to address a quality gap. Responses were scored by six faculty raters (two with and four without QI expertise) using the QIKAT-R. Validity evidence from content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences was collected. A generalisability (G) study examined sources of score variability, and decision analyses estimated projected reliability for different numbers of raters and scenarios and raters with and without QI expertise. Results Raters scored 163 responses from 28 residents. The mean QIKAT-R score was 5.69 (SD 1.06). G-coefficient and Phi-coefficient were 0.65 and 0.60, respectively. Interrater reliability was fair for raters without QI expertise (intraclass correlation = 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72) and acceptable for raters with QI expertise (intraclass correlation = 0.66, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88). Postcourse scores were significantly higher than precourse scores (6.05, SD 1.48 vs 5.22, SD 1.5; p < 0.001). Sufficient reliability for formative assessment (G-coefficient > 0.60) could be achieved by three raters scoring six scenarios or two raters scoring eight scenarios, regardless of rater QI expertise. Conclusions Validity evidence was sufficient to support the use of the QIKAT-R with multiple scenarios and raters to assess resident QI knowledge application for formative or low-stakes summative purposes. The results provide practical information for educators to guide implementation decisions.

Background OnabotulinumtoxinA has been demonstrated to be effective for the preventive treatment of headache in individuals with chronic migraine and has been approved and recommended for this patient population. While the therapeutic effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on migraine headache is well documented, there is limited information on the effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on migraine aura. Objective Given the prolonged and often debilitating nature of aura in patients with hemiplegic migraine, our group sought to examine the effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on aura frequency and severity in this specific subset of migraine patients. Methods All clinical notes from July 1, 1994 to December 1, 2017 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients diagnosed with hemiplegic migraine who received at least one set of onabotulinumtoxinA injections. Thirty‐four patients were identified; and of those, 23 were excluded due to incomplete documentation regarding aura symptoms at follow‐up visits. The clinical notes of the remaining 11 patients (4 with familial hemiplegic migraine [FHM] and 7 with sporadic hemiplegic migraine [SHM]) were reviewed, and the frequency and description of their headaches and aura before and after receiving onabotulinumtoxinA were recorded. Results Nine of the 11 patients in our series noted a decrease in the frequency, severity, and/or duration of their aura after receiving onabotulinumtoxinA. Of the 2 non‐responders, one was FHM and one was SHM. Of the 9 that noticed improved aura symptoms, 6 described a “wearing off” effect of onabotulinumtoxinA around week 9 or 10 of the 12‐week cycle, with subsequent improvement after the next round. Conclusion For 9 of 11 patients with hemiplegic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA was helpful not only in reducing the frequency and severity of headaches but also in reducing the frequency and severity of the aura. In this manuscript, we speculate on potential pathophysiologic mechanisms that could have contributed to this effect.

The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has attracted the interest of practitioners treating head and face pain for over a century because of its anatomical connections and role in the trigemino‐autonomic reflex. In this review, we discuss the anatomy of the SPG, as well as what is known about its role in the pathophysiology of headache disorders, including cluster headache and migraine. We then address various therapies that target the SPG, including intranasal medication delivery, new SPG blocking catheter devices, neurostimulation, chemical neurolysis, and ablation procedures.

Objective To survey neurology residency program directors (PDs) on trainee exposure, supervision, and credentialing in procedures widely utilized in headache medicine. Background Clinic‐based procedures have assumed a prominent role in headache therapy. Headache fellows obtain procedural competence, but reliance on fellowship‐trained neurologists cannot match the population eligible for treatments. The inclusion of educational modules and mechanisms for credentialing trainees pursuing procedural competence in residency curricula at individual programs is not known. Methods A web‐based survey of US neurology residency PDs was designed by the American Headache Society (AHS) procedural special interest section in collaboration with AHS and American Academy of Neurology's Headache and Facial Pain section leadership. The survey addressed exposure, training, and credentialing in: (1) onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) injections, (2) extracranial peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs), and (3) trigger point injections (TPIs). Results Fifty‐five PDs (42.6%) completed the survey. Compared to noncompleters, survey completers were more likely to feature headache fellowships at their institutions (38.2% vs 10.8%, P =0.0002). High exposure (onabotA=90.9%, PNBs=80.0%, TPIs=70.9%) usually featured hands‐on patient instruction (66.2%) and lectures (55.7%). Supervised performance rates were high (onabotA=65.5%, PNBs=60.0%, TPIs=52.7%), usually in continuity clinic (60.0%) or headache elective (50.9%). Headache specialists (69.1%) or general neurology (32.7%) faculty most commonly trained residents. Formal credentialing was uncommon (16.4‐18.2%), mostly by documenting supervised procedures (25.5%). Only 27.3% of programs permitted trainees to perform procedures independently. Most PDs felt procedural exposure (80.0‐90.9%) and competence (50.9‐56.4%) by all trainees was important. Conclusions Resident exposure to procedures for headache is high, but credentialing mechanisms, while desired by most PDs, are not generally in place. Implementation of a credentialing process may ensure trainees enter practice with the ability to perform procedures safely and effectively.