“
“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 Nutlin-3a supplier 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 find more 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, Sinomenine not only improving care directly, but also improving the user experience. “
“The minimum goal of secondary prophylaxis may be to delay the progression of haemarthropathy below a critical level over which it has a great impact on the QoL of haemophilia patients. However, the critical level of haemarthropathy may be different across countries. For these reasons, the impact of haemarthropathy on the QoL in Korean haemophilia A patients was investigated. Depending on observed Pettersson scores

of 27 severe haemophilia A patients, they were divided into three groups, P (Pettersson score) ≤10, P11~19 and P ≥ 20 groups. The QoL of each patient, assessed by the SF36, was compared between the groups. In addition, the changes in the QoL of the patients were observed according to the changes of Pettersson scores to find out the critical level of arthropathy. None of the scores of the SF36 scales were different between the P ≤ 10 and P11~19 groups. In contrast, the scores of PF and MH scales were significantly different between the P11~19 and P ≥ 20 groups. When changes in the scores of each scale in the SF36 were observed according to changes in Pettersson scores, the average P score of 13.0 ± 2.