Perspectives on Implementing a Multidomain Approach to Caring for Older Adults With Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The American College of Cardiology (ACC) Geriatric Cardiology Section Leadership Council recently outlined 4 key domains (which are composed of 14 subdomains) that are important to assess in older adults with heart failure (HF). We sought to determine which geriatric domains/subdomains are routinely assessed, how they are assessed, and how they impact clinical management in the care of ambulatory older adults with HF. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Ambulatory. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen active ACC member physicians from the geriatric cardiology community. MEASUREMENTS: Electronic survey assessing which domains/subdomains are currently assessed in these selected real-world practices, how they are assessed, and how they are incorporated into clinical management. RESULTS: Of 15 clinicians, 14 responded to the survey. The majority routinely assess 3 to 4 domains (median, 3; interquartile range, 3-4) and a range of 4 to 12 subdomains (median, 8; interquartile range, 6-11). All respondents routinely assess the medical and physical function domains, 71% routinely assess the mind/emotion domain, and 50% routinely assess the social domain. The most common subdomains included comorbidity burden (100%), polypharmacy (100%), basic function (93%), mobility (86%), falls risk (71%), frailty (64%), and cognition (57%). Sensory impairment (50%), social isolation (50%), nutritional status (43%), loneliness (7%), and financial means (7%) were least frequently assessed. There was significant heterogeneity with regard to the tools used to assess subdomains. Common themes for how the subdomains influenced clinical care included informing prognosis, informing risk-benefit of pharmacologic therapy and invasive procedures, and consideration for palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: While respondents routinely assess multiple domains and subdomains and view these as important to clinical care, there is substantial heterogeneity regarding which subdomains are assessed and the tools used to assess them. These observations provide a foundation that inform a research agenda with regard to providing holistic and patient-centered care to older adults with HF. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2593-2599, 2019.
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 | 0.074 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".