Abstract P171: The “Hub and Spoke” Model of Heart Function Care Achieves Quality Index Markers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Heart failure (HF) affects approximately 2% of the population with major effects on morbidity and mortality. Over 80% of existing Heart Function Clinics (HFC) are located within a hospital setting. The CoHealth (Ontario) “hub-and-spoke” model encourages community-based HFCs for patients who are less complex or relatively stable while more complex/unstable patients receive care in a hospital-based HFC. The purpose of this project was to explore patient populations and achievement of established quality indicators (QIs) within a specialist-supported community-based HFC in a Family Health Team (FHT-HFC) and a HFC in a tertiary hospital (H-HFC) over 12 months. Methods: Retrospective standardized chart reviews were conducted from all 60 patients enrolled in the FHT-HFC since its inception in 2010 to 2015, and 100 patients followed in the H-HFC in 2013. QIs were measured and compared at enrollment, 6 months and 12 months. Results: Patients attending the H-HFC vs FHT-HFC had no difference in age, sex or etiology of HF. However, patients at the H-HFC were significantly more likely to have reduced LV function, have marked HF symptoms, and more likely to have a recent hospital admission. Both cohorts had multiple comorbidities, with greater frequencies of MI, ICD/CRT/pacemaker, smoking and respiratory disease in the H-HFC group. By 6 months’ post enrollment, the number of patients with a HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the H-HFC (n=65) who were on an ACEi/ARB, beta-blocker, and MRA increased from 75% to 82%, 86% to 88%, and 29% to 34% (vs 99% to 99%, 77% to 89% and 33% to 39%, respectively in the FHT-HFC (n=28)). Over the 12 months following enrollment in a HFC the proportion of patients with NYHA class III symptoms decreased from 67% to 38% (H-HFC) vs 47% to 14% (FHT-HFC) (p < 0.05) and HF hospital admissions were reduced by 31% (H-HFC) vs 68% (FHT-HFC) (p < 0.05). At 12 months 34% (H-HFC) vs 20% (FHT-HFC) (p=0.07) of patients were enrolled in a cardiac rehabilitation program. Conclusion: While the H-HFC and FHT-HFC patients had similar demographics and comorbidities, H-HFC patients tended to more frequently have HFrEF, were more symptomatic and more likely to have been recently hospitalized. Participation in either the H-HFC or FHT-HFC was associated with medication optimization, decreased symptoms and fewer hospitalizations compared to the previous year. In conclusion, this retrospective study shows that the “hub and spoke” HFC model may have merit but needs further evaluation on a wider, more formal scale.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».