Search

Employment agencies and funding systems commonly use distal outcome measures such as employed or not employed, full-time or part-time, and continuous measures such as wage, hours worked, and type of job to document the employment status of individuals with disabilities. These measures continue to demonstrate that individuals with disabilities fall behind individuals without disabilities in all employment outcomes. While there is utility in distal outcome measures, it is difficult to determine what intervention or program variables were responsible for a specific outcome. Moreover, outcome measures do not provide sufficient information about the quality of employment supports and services an individual with disabilities receives. One way to improve accountability in employment support programs is to link outcomes to specific processes for obtaining and maintaining employment. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe how employment programs can link short-term (proximal) and long term (distal) outcomes measures to specific processes for employment. A customized employment framework is used to illustrate how systematically linking outcomes and processes improves accountability in programs that support job seekers with most significant disabilities.

Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) develop progressive liver fibrosis and end-stage liver disease. Non-invasive and widely available parameters are urgently needed to assess disease stage and the risk of clinical progression. Transient elastography (TE) has been reported to predict fibrosis stage and disease progression. However, these results have not been confirmed in an independent cohort and comparison of TE measurement to other non-invasive means is missing.In a retrospective study we collected data from consecutive PSC patients receiving TE measurements from 2006 to 2014 (n = 139). Data from 62 patients who also underwent a liver biopsy were used to assess the performance of TE and spleen length (SL) measurement for the staging of liver fibrosis. Follow-up data from this cohort (n = 130, Hamburg) and another independent cohort (n = 80, Paris) was used to compare TE and SL as predictors of clinical outcome applying Harrel's C calculations.TE measurement had a very good performance for the diagnosis and exclusion of higher fibrosis stages (≥F3: AUROC 0.95) and an excellent performance for the diagnosis and exclusion of cirrhosis (F4 vs. < F4: AUROC 0.98). Single-point TE measurement had very similar predictive power for patient outcome as previously published. In a combined cohort of PSC patients (n = 210), SL measurements had a similar performance as TE for the prediction of patient outcome (5 x cross-validated Harrel's C 0.76 and 0.72 for SL and TE, respectively).Baseline TE measurement has an excellent performance to diagnose higher fibrosis stages in PSC. Baseline measurements of SL and TE have similar usefulness as predictive markers for disease progression in patients with PSC.

MRI is of great clinical utility for the guidance of special diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The majority of such procedures are performed iteratively ("in-and-out") in standard, closed-bore MRI systems with control imaging inside the bore and needle adjustments outside the bore. The fundamental limitations of such an approach have led to the development of various assistance techniques, from simple guidance tools to advanced navigation systems. The purpose of this work was to thoroughly assess the targeting accuracy, workflow and usability of a clinical add-on navigation solution on 240 simulated biopsies by different medical operators.Navigation relied on a virtual 3D MRI scene with real-time overlay of the optically tracked biopsy needle. Smart reference markers on a freely adjustable arm ensured proper registration. Twenty-four operators - attending (AR) and resident radiologists (RR) as well as medical students (MS) - performed well-controlled biopsies of 10 embedded model targets (mean diameter: 8.5 mm, insertion depths: 17-76 mm). Targeting accuracy, procedure times and 13 Likert scores on system performance were determined (strong agreement: 5.0).Differences in diagnostic success rates (AR: 93%, RR: 88%, MS: 81%) were not significant. In contrast, between-group differences in biopsy times (AR: 4:15, RR: 4:40, MS: 5:06 min:sec) differed significantly (p