Structure and characteristics of community‐based multidisciplinary wound care teams in <scp>O</scp>ntario: An environmental scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidisciplinary team approach is an essential component of evidence-based wound management in the community. The objective of this study was to identify and describe community-based multidisciplinary wound care teams in Ontario. For the study, a working definition of a multidisciplinary wound care team was developed, and a two-phase field evaluation was conducted. In phase I, a systematic survey with three search strategies (environmental scan) was conducted to identify all multidisciplinary wound care teams in Ontario. In phase II, the team leads were surveyed about the service models of the teams. We identified 49 wound care teams in Ontario. The highest ratio of Ontario seniors to wound team within each Ontario health planning region was 82,358:1; the lowest ratio was 14,151:1. Forty-four teams (90%) participated in the survey. The majority of teams existed for at least 5 years, were established as hospital outpatient clinics, and served patients with chronic wounds. Teams were heterogeneous in on-site capacity of specialized diagnostic testing and wound treatment, team size, and patient volume. Seventy-seven percent of teams had members from three or more disciplines. Several teams lacked essential disciplines. More research is needed to identify optimal service models leading to improved patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".