Hyslop, Ann

ABSTRACT Rationale Longer duration of epilepsy before surgery is a predictor of poor outcome. While referral delays of surgical candidates are well documented, factors causing delay during the presurgical evaluation remain unclear and may vary depending on institutional characteristics. By benchmarking the duration of presurgical evaluation across multiple centers and identifying patient and evaluation characteristics contributing to duration, we can ascertain best practices and address modifiable contributors to reduce delays. Methods We queried the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Surgery Database, a prospective, observational multicenter study enrolling children 0–18 years at 27 US pediatric epilepsy centers, for all patients undergoing initial presurgical evaluation for drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). We included patients with completed evaluations and data on duration from initiation of presurgical evaluation to final surgical decision. We compared patient characteristics and evaluation components between those with long duration evaluations (> 75% quartile) and those with short evaluations (< 25% quartile). Akaike information criteria selection identified variables associated with longer duration. From these, we developed a logistic prediction model for evaluation duration, using a random 80/20 training/testing split of the entire cohort. The model was tested among institutions with ≥ 10 patients in the cohort to assess its accuracy in predicting long durations. Linear models for each site assessed each variable's impact on duration. Variables with < 10% of the patient population at each site were excluded. Beta values were compared to identify intra‐ and inter‐institution variability and to delineate institutions with the shortest added duration for each variable. Results Of 2318 patients undergoing surgical evaluation, 1655 (71%) from 23 sites had complete data. Median evaluation duration was 8 weeks (interquartile range 3–22); 453 (27%) were short‐duration evaluations and 414 (25%) were long‐duration evaluations. Multiple patient and evaluation characteristics were associated with duration (Table 1). Table 6 provides the average duration each variable contributes to evaluation by site, highlighting the shortest durations compared with other groups. Conclusions Duration of presurgical evaluation for DRE can be accurately modeled using multiple patient characteristics and testing strategies commonly employed in epilepsy surgery evaluations. This predictive model can not only estimate evaluation duration but also identify opportunities to improve systemic efficiency. Institution‐level modeling identifies specific program strengths, providing an opportunity to learn from successful processes. Subsequent research will focus on institutional process mapping to better understand systemic practices that lead to improved efficiencies, then sharing these processes across the consortium to shorten evaluation durations.

Summary: The development of clinical practice guidelines is an evolving field. In response to the need for consistent, evidence-based medical practice, the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society identified the need to update the Society's guideline development process. The American Clinical Neurophysiology Society Guidelines Committee created an action plan with the goal of improving transparency and rigor for future guidelines and bringing existing guidelines to current standards. This article provides an overview of the new American Clinical Neurophysiology Society standards for the creation of clinical guidance documents, including clinical guidelines, technical standards, and consensus statements. This process is rooted in the importance of clinical guidance documents and their significance in the context of current behests for updated standards for practicing clinical neurophysiology. The need and rationale for updating the guideline development process from its prior state were described. The updated American Clinical Neurophysiology Society categories for clinical guidance and recommendations were defined and compared. Finally, the new process is summarized, focusing on methodologies, authorship, and conflicts of interest.