The development of a patient partnership programme and its impact on quality improvements in a comprehensive haemophilia care service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been advocated that patient input in service quality development is essential. We have developed a model of quality evaluation and improvement within a comprehensive haemophilia service, and describe the issues and improvements that resulted from the process. The project utilized an action research methodology. Seven patients were recruited from the haemophilia service for the initial focus groups. The main themes initially explored were as follows: patient experience of the outpatient, inpatient and weekend services and provision of information. The focus group data were analysed using basic content analysis. The main themes the initial focus group identified were the need to optimize the annual review, emergency care and inpatient facilities. Following this, the haemophilia care team worked on improving these issues. At the second focus group the patients contributed at a higher level - patient participation. Patients assisted in addressing outstanding issues such as ID alert card content and the algorithm of care for emergency services. Finally, a patient panel was developed and the relationship became one of direct negotiation and partnership with the haemophilia team to address issues within the service. The expectations and needs of patients attending the haemophilia comprehensive care service are complex. The process of including patients as partners at the highest level of patient involvement evolved and proved an effective method of service evaluation and development, facilitating lateral decision-making, not only improving care directly, but also improving the user experience.
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 | 0.001 | 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".