Letter by McAlister and Ezekowitz Regarding Article, “Temporal Trends and Variation in Early Scheduled Follow-Up After a Hospitalization for Heart Failure: Findings From Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
HomeCirculation: Heart FailureVol. 9, No. 6Letter by McAlister and Ezekowitz Regarding Article, "Temporal Trends and Variation in Early Scheduled Follow-Up After a Hospitalization for Heart Failure: Findings From Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure" Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBLetter by McAlister and Ezekowitz Regarding Article, "Temporal Trends and Variation in Early Scheduled Follow-Up After a Hospitalization for Heart Failure: Findings From Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure" Finlay A. McAlister, MD, MSc Justin A. Ezekowitz, MBBCh MSc Finlay A. McAlisterFinlay A. McAlister Division of General Internal Medicine University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Canadian VIGOUR Centre University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Justin A. EzekowitzJustin A. Ezekowitz Division of Cardiology University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Canadian VIGOUR Centre University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Originally published13 Jun 2016https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.002980Circulation: Heart Failure. 2016;9:e002980To the Editor:In their recent publication, DeVore et al demonstrated an increase between 2009 and 2012 in the proportion of heart failure patients who were scheduled for outpatient follow-up within 7 days of discharge.1 Because continuity of care has been shown to be associated with less healthcare utilization (hospitalizations, emergency department visits) and better patient outcomes,2,3 it seems reasonable to hypothesize that one of the factors contributing to continued poor outcomes for patients with chronic diseases such as heart failure is fragmentation. We have previously shown that (in Canada) early follow-up after a hospitalization or emergency department visit for heart failure with physicians familiar with a particular patient is associated with lower readmission rates than early follow-up with any physician.4,5 Are the investigators able to determine what proportion of early follow-up appointments in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure hospitals were planned to be with a physician who had been involved with the patient's care either before or during the index hospitalization? We think that continuity of care is one of the fundamental building blocks for any high-performing healthcare system and that the current guideline's emphasis on prompt follow-up after hospitalizations or emergency department visits may lead to system changes that neglect the importance of continuity.Finlay A. McAlister, MD, MScDivision of General Internal MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, CanadaCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, CanadaJustin A. Ezekowitz, MBBCh MScDivision of CardiologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, CanadaCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, CanadaDisclosuresNone.References1. DeVore AD, Cox M, Eapen ZJ, Yancy CW, Bhatt DL, Heidenreich PA, Peterson ED, Fonarow GC, Hernandez AF. Temporal trends and variation in early scheduled follow-up after a hospitalization for heart failure: findings from Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure.Circ Heart Fail. 2016; 9:e002344. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002344.LinkGoogle Scholar2. Hussey PS, Schneider EC, Rudin RS, Fox DS, Lai J, Pollack CE. Continuity and the costs of care for chronic disease.JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174:742–748. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.245.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. van Walraven C, Oake N, Jennings A, Forster AJ. The association between continuity of care and outcomes: a systematic and critical review.J Eval Clin Pract. 2010; 16:947–956. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01235.x.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. McAlister FA, Youngson E, Bakal JA, Kaul P, Ezekowitz J, van Walraven C. Impact of physician continuity on death or urgent readmission after discharge among patients with heart failure.CMAJ. 2013; 185:E681–E689. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.130048.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Sidhu RS, Youngson E, McAlister FA. Physician continuity improves outcomes for heart failure patients treated and released from the emergency department.JACC Heart Fail. 2014; 2:368–376. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2014.03.006.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails June 2016Vol 9, Issue 6 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.002980PMID: 27296398 Originally publishedJune 13, 2016 PDF download Advertisement SubjectsEpidemiologyHeart Failure
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».