Exploring experiences of patients attending an outpatient thrombosis service in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background There is limited information on patients’ experiences that influence their satisfaction and perception of the quality of care received at comprehensive thrombosis and anticoagulation management services. However, in order to provide patient-centred care, patients’ input is fundamental. Therefore, we aimed to explore the views and experiences of people who received care at an Adult Outpatient Thrombosis Service to identify aspects that are valued as well as areas for improvement. Methods This is an analysis of free-text data from an anonymous survey sent to all adult patients who received care from a multidisciplinary Thrombosis Service in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada between October 2017 and May 2019. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the open-ended free text responses and identify common themes. Findings In total, 40.7% (n=229) of survey respondents (N=563) provided comments to the free-text question. Respondents made more positive comments than negative comments. Four common themes were identified: feeling seen, heard, and cared for; the information received filled the gap and sometimes missed the mark; service organization and follow-up: smooth for some, frustrating for others; and, accessing care: virtual options, travel burden, and waiting. Conclusion This analysis highlights the positive effect of receiving clear information and having a respectful patient-provider relationship on patients’ perceived quality of care. Conversely, the need for alternative consultation-delivery modes, such as virtual care, was identified as an area of opportunity to improve patients’ care 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".