Management of heart failure in Canadian long-term care facilities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In long-term care (LTC) facilities, heart failure is common but undertreated. No Canadian studies of heart failure in LTC facilities have been reported. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of heart failure in Canadian LTC facilities; to document the management of heart failure in LTC; and to describe characteristics of LTC residents with heart failure and predictors of adherence to treatment guidelines. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey in eight LTC facilities lodging 1223 residents. RESULTS: The prevalence of heart failure was 20%. LTC residents with heart failure were older, more often women, and more functionally impaired and burdened by comorbidity than were participants in heart failure trials. Documentation supporting the heart failure diagnosis was inadequate, with some symptoms possibly misattributed to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were prescribed to 55% of residents, although only 45% received appropriate doses. Residents with hypertension or diabetes mellitus, using nitrates or who were male were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors. Appropriate ACE inhibitor doses were associated with functional impairment, nitrate use and recent hospitalization. Documentation of systolic dysfunction was associated with a greater likelihood of ACE inhibitor use. Beta-blockers were prescribed to 25% of residents, who were more likely to be using nitrates, have ischemic heart disease or had been recently hospitalized, and less likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Residents with atrial fibrillation were more likely to be prescribed digoxin. Potentially hazardous regimens were prescribed to 43% of residents. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure is common in Canadian LTC facilities. Management of heart failure in LTC does not conform to guidelines. Improved diagnostic methods tailored for frail elderly patients must be developed. Studies are needed to understand and identify factors influencing prescribing for heart failure medication in LTC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".