Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite well-documented positive benefits, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an underutilized resource for patients following a cardiac event or intervention. Bias in the CR referral process has led to programs designed to ensure that all eligible patients receive a referral. The purpose of the current investigation was to describe the implementation of a nurse-delivered automatic bedside referral process and to examine the effectiveness on referral and intake rates for CR. METHODS: In 2007, an automatic CR referral system was implemented at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. A nurse-delivered automatic bedside referral process was implemented in 2008. A CR nurse screened all inpatient charts, discussed CR benefits and program options with patients, triaged the patient to the appropriate program, and facilitated booking of the CR intake appointment. Data were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of this approach. RESULTS: Only 15.5% to 19.7% of eligible patients participated in CR program prior to 2006. Implementation of an automatic referral process increased participation to 26.7%. The nurse-delivered bedside automatic referral process increased participation to 32.6%. The proportion of patients receiving CR referrals almost tripled following the implementation of the nurse-delivered referral process from 26.7% in 2003 to 79.0% in 2008. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-delivered automatic bedside referral process had a positive impact on both referral and intake to CR. Future challenges for CR programs will be to ensure optimal participation in programs, while managing the growth associated with increased rates of involvement.
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) | 0.000 | 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".