Influence of Patient Goals of Care on Performance Measures in Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pay for performance programs compare metrics that are risk-adjusted, but goals of care are not considered in current models. We conducted this study to explore the associations between do not resuscitate (DNR) designations, quality of care, and outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study with chart review for inpatient quality metrics, 30 day mortality, and readmissions or death within 30 days of discharge in 96 Ontario hospitals participating in the Enhanced Feedback For Effective Cardiac Treatment (EFFECT) study in 2004/05. Of 8339 patients (mean age 77 years) with new heart failure, 1220 (15%) had DNR documented at admission (admission DNR, varying from 0% to 36% between hospitals) and 892 (11%) were switched from full resuscitation to DNR during their index hospitalization (later DNR). Death at 30 days was more common in patients with admission DNR (27%) or later DNR (35%) than full resuscitation (3%)-admission DNR was a stronger predictor (adjusted OR 8.6, 95% confidence interval 6.8-10.7) than any of the variables currently included in heart failure 30 day mortality risk models. Hospital-level rankings differed considerably if DNR patients were excluded: 22 of the 39 EFFECT hospitals in the top and bottom quintiles for 30 day mortality rates (the usual thresholds for rewards/penalties in current performance-based reimbursement schemes) would not have been in those same quintiles if admission DNR patients were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Alternate goals of care are frequent and important confounders in heart failure comparative studies. Philosophy of care discussions should be considered for inclusion as a potential quality of care indicator.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".