The aim of this project is to assess the ability of different groups of National Heath Service (NHS) professionals to correctly identify clinical seizures, and distinguish them from other movements commonly seen in the ICU environment, when shown digital video recordings only. Patients on the ICU are at risk of having seizures, however also commonly make other movements, including shivering, jerking, tics and tremors. An Electroencephalogram (EEG) records the brain wave activity and can help distinguish epileptic seizures from other movements. In a study by Bendadis et al (2010), 52 video-EEGs were reviewed containing "possible seizures" on the ICU. They found only 27% recorded actual epileptic events, with the other 73% having a range of other movements. Malone et al (2009) studied accuracy of diagnosis of 20 video recordings of clinical episodes on the neonatal unit, comparing different staff groups. They found no significant difference between Doctors and Nurses in correctly identifying seizures, however found that accuracy of diagnosis was generally poor. Clinical scientists are currently expanding their roles and responsibilities across Neurophysiology, including giving consultant-level advice on EEG investigations. EEG recordings on the ICU are often obscured by excessive, unavoidable electrical/movement artefacts caused by equipment such ventilators and pumps, and patient factors such as position, breathing artefact and suctioning. These make the EEG difficult to interpret (Boggs 2021). Assessing the clinical signs and symptoms which we may see in ICU patients, in the absence of interpretable EEG, is an essential skill. This study aims to assess Clinical Scientists skills at clinical interpretation, in comparison with other staff groups in the ICU setting. Staff will be asked to watch video clips of events captured in the ICU, and tell us whether they think they are seizures or not, and explain their thought process behind the decision.
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Level of Agreement
Timeframe: through study completion, an average of 1 year