Transfer and transition practices in 96 European adult congenital heart disease centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Irrespective of initial treatment for congenital heart disease (CHD) in childhood, CHD is a lifelong condition, leaving patients at risk for complications. To support uninterrupted, age- and development-based care for young persons with CHD, guidelines and consensus papers emphasise the need for formal transition programmes, including transfer to adult CHD (ACHD) clinics. Here, we surveyed existing transfer and transition programmes in European ACHD centres. Our aims were to provide a contemporary view of transitional care for patients with CHD and to evaluate progress over the last decade. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional survey in 96 ACHD centres in Europe. A specific survey form was developed that sampled the practices of transfer and/or transition. We used a transfer-transition index to quantify adherence to quality indicators of successful transfer and transition. RESULTS: Of the 96 ACHD centres, 40 (41.7%) offered a formal transition, and 85 (88.5%) had structured transfer from paediatric to ACHD care. Although 31% of the centres performed at a 'good' level on the transfer-transition index, only 4 (4.2%) satisfied all criteria. Most centres with a transition programme offered education and support through a dedicated transition specialist, who was a master's-prepared nurse in most centres. A minority of the ACHD centres offered a flexible transition process, starting at least two years before transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of the included ACHD centres offered a formal transition programme, and almost 90% offered structured transfer. Despite some improvements since 2009, most of the programmes lacked an age- and development-based approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".