ReflAct:Formative assessment for teacher reflection in video-coaching settings

Video coaching appears to be a promising approach for teachers' professional development, but is not automatically productive. To our knowledge, there are no tools to help coaches to formatively assess the quality of reflective talk. Such a tool is needed to help coaches realize the potential of reflective video coaching conversations. Key features of a minimally viable prototype were explored through a mixed-methods proof-of-concept study, focusing on (perceptions of) added value, compatibility, clarity, and tolerance. A total of 17 participants with insight into teachers' reflective practices participated in an online study. Data were collected through think-aloud protocols, interviews, surveys, and use logs. Findings showed modest, yet concrete evidence that a tool would be viable and is worth developing further. First, users indicated that it could add value in terms of development and calibration that outweighed the associated costs. Second, the tool was deemed compatible with improvement needs, though respondents pointed out that attention should be paid to user differences, and to strengthening familiarization opportunities. Third, seven sub-factors require explanation to increase the tool's clarity. Finally, the tool appeared tolerant of various modalities of use, but reasoning about the nature of reflective conversations requires support. Together, the results yield quality criteria that can be used for further development and evaluation, and the findings extend current theory on the collaborative learning and reflection of (pre- and in-service) teacher educators. Overall, this study illustrates how digital technology can facilitate operationalization of ambiguous processes like reflective talk, and highlights the importance of attending to the implementation early on

Analytical evaluation of five oral fluid drug testing devices

Introduction: The correlation with blood drug presence and the easiness of sample collection make oral fluid an ideal matrix for roadside drug tests targeting impaired drivers. Aim: To evaluate the reliability of five oral fluid testing devices: Varian OraLab®6, Dräger DrugTest® 5000, Cozart® DDS 806, Mavand RapidSTAT® and Innovacon OrAlert. Method: More than 760 samples were collected from volunteers either at drug addiction treatment centres or during roadside sessions. Target drug classes were amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine and opiates for all devices. Dräger DrugTest® 5000 (137 samples tested), Cozart® DDS 806 (n=138) and Mavand Rapid STAT® (n=133) could also detect the presence of benzodiazepines, while phencyclidine could be detected using Varian OraLab® 6 (n=249) and Innovacon OrAlert (n=110). Samples were tested on-site with one of the selected devices. Volunteers provided an additional oral fluid sample for confirmation analysis by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and prevalence were calculated applying Belgian legal confirmation cut-offs. Results : All devices showed good specificity for all drug classes. Sensitivity and accuracy were very variable among devices and drug classes. Overall, when applying Belgian law cut-offs, sensitivity was always unsatisfactory for cocaine (highest sensitivity 50%), moderate or very low for cannabis and amphetamines (23-80% and 17-75% respectively). Conclusions : Considering that cannabis, followed by amphetamines, is the most prevalent drug among impaired drivers in Belgium, only one device was sensitive enough to be used during roadside police controls. This abstract has been produced under the project “Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines” (DRUID) financed by the European Community within the framework of the EU 6th Framework Program. This abstract reflects only the author's view. The European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therei

Self reported (il)licit drug use in Belgian drivers

Introduction: There are relatively few data on the prevalence of driving under the influence of drugs in the general population. Aim: To determine the number of drivers who took drugs and medicines by using questionnaires, and comparing to the results of toxicological analysis. Method : 2957 respondents driving a personal car or van completed a questionnaire during roadside surveys to report their use of drugs and medicines during the last two weeks and indicate the time of last intake. The drug classes were combined to benzodiazepines and Z-drugs, antidepressants, codeine, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, heroin and amphetamines. Drugs were analysed in oral fluid by UPLC-MS/MS. Frequencies in the time categories were calculated and compared with toxicological results. Results : Drug class Self-report/ toxicology Use 24h Unknown Alcohol 1614/196 138/95 180/56 182/15 370/9 713/14 31/7 Antidepressants 110/41 6/3 14/5 50/19 24/8 8/0 8/6 Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs 98/40 4/2 10/9 33/14 30/9 12/4 9/2 Cannabis 79/32 5/4 3/1 10/8 7/3 46/14 8/2 Codeine 60/6 4/2 7/3 9/0 6/0 25/0 9/1 Cocaine 7/5 2/2 0 0 0 4/2 1/1 Amphetamines 5/2 0 0 0 0 3/1 2/1 Heroin 2/1 1/1 0 0 0 1/0 0 Conclusions : Alcohol, antidepressants, cannabis, benzodiazepines and codeine were most commonly used. Most drugs were last used >4h or more before driving. Self-report yielded more positives than toxicological analysis. The percentages of positives were higher among the subjects who reported more recent drug consumption. Disclaimer: This abstract has been produced under the project “Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines” (DRUID) financed by the European Community within the framework of the EU 6th Framework Program. This abstract reflects only the author's view. The European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein

Pertendonckstraat te Broechem (gem. Ranst). Archeologisch vooronderzoek door middel van Proefsleuven

Dit rapport werd ingediend bij het agentschap samen met een aantal afzonderlijke digitale bijlagen. Een aantal van deze bijlagen zijn niet inbegrepen in dit pdf document en zijn niet online beschikbaar. Sommige bijlagen (grondplannen, fotos, spoorbeschrijvingen, enz.) kunnen van belang zijn voor een betere lezing en interpretatie van dit rapport. Indien u deze bijlagen wenst te raadplegen kan u daarvoor contact opnemen met: [email protected]

Graethempoort te Borgloon

Dit rapport werd ingediend bij het agentschap samen met een aantal afzonderlijke digitale bijlagen. Een aantal van deze bijlagen zijn niet inbegrepen in dit pdf document en zijn niet online beschikbaar. Sommige bijlagen (grondplannen, fotos, spoorbeschrijvingen, enz.) kunnen van belang zijn voor een betere lezing en interpretatie van dit rapport. Indien u deze bijlagen wenst te raadplegen kan u daarvoor contact opnemen met: [email protected]

Nurse telephone triage in out-of-hours GP practice: determinants of independent advice and return consultation

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, nurses play a central role in telephone triage in Dutch out-of-hours primary care. The percentage of calls that is handled through nurse telephone advice alone (NTAA) appears to vary substantially between GP cooperatives. This study aims to explore which determinants are associated with NTAA and with subsequent return consultations to the GP. METHODS: For the ten most frequently presented problems, a two-week follow-up cohort study took place in one cooperative run by 25 GPs and 8 nurses, serving a population of 62,291 people. Random effects logistic regression analysis was used to study the determinants of NTAA and return consultation rates. The effect of NTAA on hospital referral rates was also studied as a proxy for severity of illness. RESULTS: The mean NTAA rate was 27.5% – ranging from 15.5% to 39.4% for the eight nurses. It was higher during the night (RR 1.63, CI 1.48–1.76) and lower with increasing age (RR 0.96, CI 0.93–0.99, per ten years) or when the patient presented >2 problems (RR 0.65; CI 0.51–0.83). Using cough as reference category, NTAA was highest for earache (RR 1.49; CI 1.18–1.78) and lowest for chest pain (RR 0.18; CI 0.06–0.47). After correction for differences in case mix, significant variation in NTAA between nurses remained (p < 0.001). Return consultations after NTAA were higher after nightly calls (RR 1.23; CI 1.04–1.40). During first return consultations, the hospital referral rate after NTAA was 1.5% versus 3.8% for non-NTAA (difference -2.2%; CI -4.0 to -0.5). CONCLUSION: Important inter-nurse variability may indicate differences in perception on tasks and/or differences in skill to handle telephone calls alone. Future research should focus more on modifiable determinants of NTAA rates