Care Coordination and the prosthetic clinic: A clinical outcomes and program evaluation project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Care Coordination is the health care delivery model that has been implemented in the prosthetic clinic at the Shriners Hospital for Children - Canada. In delivering comprehensive, family-centered services, it is important to evaluate the extent to which patients and families perceive coordinated care to occur. AIM: To evaluate the delivery of Care Coordination services to our patients and families in the prosthetic clinic, and to identify strengths and areas for improvement. The time required to provide coordinated care was also evaluated. METHODS: The MPOC-20 was administered to the parents of 23 lower extremity deficiency or amputee patients seen in the prosthetic clinic over a 14-month period. RESULTS: Providing coordinated and comprehensive care related to involving families as part of the team was the most frequently reported strength of the prosthetic clinic Care Coordination. Providing information to families about their child's progress and having information and resources available were areas identified as needing improvement by approximately 30% of respondents. Those with complex health needs required five times the amount of Care Coordination devoted time than the average patient. CONCLUSIONS: The MPOC-20 proved to be a useful tool to highlight areas for improvement in the prosthetic clinic and to validate aspects of care coordination that were appreciated by families.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".