Primary Care Provider Receipt of Cardiac Rehabilitation Discharge Summaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication between cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and primary care providers (PCPs) is paramount to promoting long-term risk reduction after the completion of CR. The objectives of this study were to investigate receipt of CR discharge summaries by PCPs, as well as timing, and satisfaction with and perceptions of CR summaries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-seven eligible PCPs of consenting enrollees from 8 regional or urban Ontario CR programs were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study. Discharge summaries were tracked from the CR program to the PCP's office. PCPs who received a summary were mailed a survey assessing their perceptions of the summaries. Of the 138 (24.0%) eligible consenting PCPs, 71 (51.5%) received CR discharge summary, of whom 64 (90.1%) completed the survey. All PCPs desired to receive discharge summaries, with most wanting it transmitted via fax (n=38, 61.3%). Forty-seven (77.1%) PCPs reported they had or will use information in the summary for patient care. PCPs who did not receive the discharge summary in advance of their patient's first post-CR visit (n=7, 10.9%) were significantly less likely to use it in patient care (P<0.01). On a 5-point Likert scale, PCPs rated medication (4.65±0.74), patient care plan (4.43±0.87), and clinical status (4.33±0.94) as most important to include in a CR discharge summary. These were not provided in 18.8% (n=12), 4.7% (n=3), and 22.2% (n=14) of summaries, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of CR discharge summaries reach PCPs, revealing a large gap in continuity of patient care.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".