The Lantern Vol. 3, No. 3, June 1935

• Scholarship\u27s Reward • Thus Endeth • Even in Dover • An Essay Submitted for the Paisley Prize: The Moral Standard to Which We Must Appeal in Judging Whether a Lie is Ever Justifiable • Towers of France • An Essay Submitted for the Paisley Prize • Initial Adventures in Psychiatry • In Commemoration of Comus • The Amish Maidenhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/lantern/1006/thumbnail.jp

Summary Report for the 2005-2006 STATEMAP Project: Geologic Mapping to Support Improved Database Development and Understanding of Urban Corridors, Critical Acquifers. And Special Areas of Environmental Concern in Texas

Eleven geologic maps, 1:24,000 scale, have been constructed for Galveston and Mustang Barrier Islands and for part of the Brazos River Valley and its aquifers. The maps are intended to be used by professionals and laypersons as a source of general geologic information that relates to land and resource use and management. The geologic maps of the barrier islands include (a) Northern Mustang Island (Port Aransas quadrangle), (b) Southern Mustang Island (Crane Islands NW quadrangle), (c) Northeastern Galveston Island (Galveston quadrangle), (d) Central Galveston Island (Lake Como quadrangle), and (e) Southeastern Galveston Island (Sea Isle and San Luis Pass quadrangles). These maps display island wetland and upland geologic environments. Geologic maps of the Brazos River Valley study area include six quadrangles: Baileyville, Hammond, Maysfield, Calvert, Gause, and Hearne South. These maps and cross sections show the geologic framework of the Brazos alluvial aquifer in an area where it intersects three other Texas aquifers: the Carrizo-Wilcox, Queen City, and Sparta.Bureau of Economic Geolog

Informing the NHS Outcomes Framework : evaluating meaningful health outcomes for children with neurodisability using multiple methods including systematic review, qualitative research, Delphi survey and consensus meeting

Background: The identification of suitable outcome measures will improve the evaluation of integrated NHS care for the large number of children affected by neurodisability, and has the potential to encourage the provision of more appropriate and effective health care. This research sought to appraise the potential of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for children and young people with neurodisability. Aim: This research aimed (i) to identify key outcomes of health care for children with neurodisability, beyond morbidity and mortality, from the perspectives of children, parents and professionals, (ii) to critically appraise existing generic multidimensional PROMs, and (iii) to examine whether or not the key outcomes might be measured by existing PROMs. We also sought agreement on a definition of neurodisability. Methods: Data were gathered in three main ways, (i) a systematic review identified eligible generic multidimensional PROMs and peer-reviewed studies evaluating psychometric performance using English-language questionnaires. Studies were appraised for methodological quality and psychometric performance was appraised using standard criteria. (ii) Focus groups and interviews with children and young people with neurodisability, and separately with parents, sought to identify important outcomes of NHS care, and their feedback on example PROM questionnaires. (iii) An online Delphi survey was conducted with a multidisciplinary sample of health professionals to seek agreement on appropriate NHS outcomes. In addition, we convened a consensus meeting with a small nominal group of young people, parents and professionals, the group sought agreement on a core set of important health outcomes. Results: From the systematic review, we identified 126 papers that reported eligible evidence regarding the psychometric performance of 25 PROMs. Evidence of psychometric robustness was more favourable for a small number of PROMs: KIDSCREEN (generic), DISABKIDS (chronic-generic) and Child Health Utility 9D (preference-based measure). The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and KINDL offer both self-report and a proxy report version for a range of age bands, but evidence of their psychometric performance was weaker. Evidence was lacking in one or more respects for all candidate PROMs, in both general populations and those with neurodisability. Proxy reporting was found generally to be poorly correlated with self-report. Focus groups and interviews included 54 children and young people, and 53 parents. The more important health outcomes were felt to be communication, emotional well-being, pain, mobility, independence/self-care, worry/mental health, social activities and sleep. In addition, parents of children with intellectual impairment identified behaviour, toileting and safety as important outcomes. Participants suggested problems with the face validity of example PROM questionnaires for measuring NHS care. In the Delphi survey, 276 clinicians from a wide range of professions contributed to at least one of four rounds. Professionals rated pain, hearing, seeing, sleep, toileting, mobility and communication as key goals for the NHS but also identified treating neurological symptoms as important. Professionals in the Delphi survey and parents working with the research team agreed a proposed definition for neurodisability. The consensus meeting confirmed overlap between the outcomes identified as important by young people, parents and professionals, but not complete agreement. Conclusions: There was agreement between young people, parents and professionals regarding a core suite of more important health outcomes: communication, emotional well-being, pain, mobility, independence/self-care, worry/mental health, social activities and sleep. In addition, behaviour, toileting and safety were identified as important by parents. This research suggests that it would be appropriate to measure these constructs using PROMs to assess health care. None of the candidate PROMs in the review adequately captures all of the identified constructs, and there is inadequate evidence that candidate PROMs are psychometrically robust for use across children with neurodisability. Further consultation with young people, families and professionals is warranted to support the use of PROMs to measure NHS outcomes. Research to test potential PROMs with different age groups and conditions would be valuable

Veterans Health Administration Mental Health Program Evaluation, Summary

This report summarizes a four-year evaluation of mental health services provided by the Veterans Administration (VA) for veterans with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, major depression, and substance use disorders. The population of veterans with the diagnoses included in the study comprises a large and growing number of veterans with severe and complex general medical and mental disorders and accounts for a disproportionately large proportion of utilization and costs for the VA. Study veterans represented 15.4 percent of all veterans who used VA services in 2007 but accounted for 32.9 percent of the costs due to higher utilization of inpatient and outpatient services. Across the country, VA facilities report substantial capacity for treating seriously mentally ill veterans. Although capacity has increased since the implementation of the Mental Health Strategic Plan in 2005, important gaps remain. The proportion of veterans receiving recommended care varies widely, and there is variation in many of the performance indicators assessed with regard to specific populations, services, and locations. In most instances, VA care performance is as good as or better than that reported by other groups or shown by direct comparisons with other systems of care, but the level often does not meet implicit VA expectations. Most performance indicators did not show substantial improvement from FY 2004 through FY 2007, but recent structural enhancements and increased availability of services may yield improvements in the future, and the number of veterans in the study cohorts who were served during the study period increased annually. Veterans' perceptions of VA services were favorable, although they did not perceive significant improvement in their conditions. Opportunities for further investigation are identified, along with specific problem areas and strategies for improving performance and methods to enhance capacity for quality monitoring and improvement