Multidisciplinary Team Care of Patients with Hemophilic Arthropathy: A Qualitative Assessment of Contemporary Practice in the UK and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a structured interview to explore approaches to comprehensive hemophilia and arthropathy care among 24 healthcare professionals (HCPs) from multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in Canada and the UK. Represented MDTs typically comprise a hematologist, nurse, physiotherapist, and sometimes an orthopedic surgeon; pediatric (and some adult) MDTs also include a social worker/psychologist. HCPs emphasized the centrality of a team approach, facilitated through MDT meetings and involvement of all MDT members in patient care. In both countries, nurses and physiotherapists play critical, multifaceted roles. Respondents agreed that MDTs are crucial for successful transitioning, which can be facilitated by close collaboration between pediatric and adult MDTs, even when they are not co-located. Physiotherapists are instrumental in providing non-pharmacological pain relief. Hematologists or physiotherapists typically make orthopedic referrals, with the nurse, physiotherapist and hematologist working together in patient preparation for (and follow-up after) surgery. MDT best practices include a non-hierarchical team approach, ensuring that all MDT members know all patients, and regular MDT meetings. Together, these real-life insights from the MDT perspective emphasize the value of the MDT approach in comprehensive hemophilia care.
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) | 0.001 | 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".