Global Variation in Quality of Care Among Patients Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure in an International Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Translation of evidence-based heart failure (HF) therapies to clinical practice is incomplete and may vary internationally. We examined common measures of quality of care in patients enrolled in the international Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were admitted to 398 hospitals for acute HF in 5 regions (North America, n=3149; Latin America, n=658; Asia Pacific, n=1744; Central Europe, n=966; and Western Europe, n=490). Predefined quality indicators assessed at hospital discharge included the following: medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β-blockers, aldosterone antagonists, hydralazine/nitrates, statin therapy, and warfarin), use (or planned use) of implantable intracardiac devices, and blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg). We determined regional variations in quality indicators as well as the temporal variation of these indicators during the course of the trial. There was significant variation in conformity among different quality indicators, ranging from 0% to 89%. Of all potential performance opportunities, 19 076 of 32 268 (59%) were met, with Central Europe highest at 64%, followed by North America (63%), Western Europe (61%), Latin America (56%), and Asia Pacific (51%; P<0.0001). North America, Central Europe, and Asia Pacific regions demonstrated a modest increase in quality indicator conformity over time, although there was no significant change in other regions. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care for patients hospitalized with acute HF varies and remains suboptimal even within a randomized clinical trial, which included quality improvement interventions. Specific measures designed to improve performance measures should be implemented even within multicenter clinical trials.
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) | 0.001 | 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".