Provisional guidelines for applying the Department of Health (England) 18-week-patient pathway to specialist rheumatology care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Government Department of Health (England) has set a target that by 2008 patients on pathways that do or may involve medical or surgical consultant-led care should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to start of definitive treatment. Department of Health guidance must be interpreted and applied to patients with rheumatological problems. METHODS: Provisional guidelines have been prepared in collaboration between the British Society for Rheumatology, British Pain Society, Department of Health (England) and other key stakeholders. RESULTS: Definitive rheumatological treatment comprises a package of care rather than a single action. The care package usually requires input from a multidisciplinary team using several modalities in parallel. Actions within the care package that must be taken before treatment can be said to have started, are definitive actions. Definitive actions should be based on evidence of cost-effectiveness, tailored to the individual patient and offered irrespective of local availability or accessibility. They should be agreed between partners in the patient's care. This requires face-to-face consultation between the patient and a health care professional with appropriate expertise and knowledge. All definitive actions specified at the outset of management within specialist care must be initiated or removed by agreement from the patient's care package before the clock can be stopped in the 18-week-patient pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Service redesign may be necessary in order to achieve an 18-week-patient pathway for all patients. A consistent and appropriate definition of clock-stops should ensure that patients will benefit from excellent rheumatology specialist care without unnecessary delay.
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 | 0.077 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
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".