The difficulty of diagnosing NCSE in clinical practice; external validation of the Salzburg criteria

To improve the diagnostic accuracy of electroencephalography (EEG) criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), external validation of the recently proposed Salzburg criteria is paramount. We performed an external, retrospective, diagnostic accuracy study of the Salzburg criteria, using EEG recordings from patients with and without a clinical suspicion of having NCSE. Of the 191 EEG recordings, 12 (12%) was classified as an NCSE according to the reference standard. In the validation cohort, sensitivity was 67% and specificity was 89%. The positive predictive value was 47% and the negative predictive value was 95%. Ten patients in the control group (n = 93) were false positive, resulting in a specificity of 89.2%. The interrater agreement between the reference standards and between the scorers of the Salzburg criteria was moderate; disagreement occurred mainly in patients with an epileptic encephalopathy. The Salzburg criteria showed a lower diagnostic accuracy in our external validation study than in the original design, suggesting that they cannot replace the current practice of careful weighing of both clinical and EEG information on an individual basis.     

A process evaluation of implementing a vocational enablement protocol for employees with hearing difficulties in clinical practice

Objective: A multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation programme, the Vocational Enablement Protocol (VEP) was developed to address the specific needs of employees with hearing difficulties. In the current study we evaluated the process of implementing the VEP in audiologic care among employees with hearing impairment. Design: In conjunction with a randomized controlled trial, we collected and analysed data on seven process parameters: recruitment, reach, fidelity, dose delivered, dose received and implemented, satisfaction, and perceived benefit. Study sample: Sixty-six employees with hearing impairment participated in the VEP. The multidisciplinary team providing the VEP comprised six professionals. Results: The professionals performed the VEP according to the protocol. Of the recommendations delivered by the professionals, 31% were perceived as implemented by the employees. Compliance rate was highest for hearing-aid uptake (51%). Both employees and professionals were highly satisfied with the VEP. Participants rated good perceived benefit from it. Conclusions: Our results indicate that the VEP could be a useful treatment for employees with hearing difficulties from a process evaluation perspective. Implementation research in the audiological setting should be encouraged in order to further provide insight into parameters facilitating or hindering successful implementation of an intervention and to improve its quality and efficacy.