Application of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society's heart failure guidelines in a heart function clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keywords: Heart Failure, Guideline Adherence, Evidence Based-PracticePurpose: Heart failure is a significant diagnosis that poses serious mortality and morbidity risks. Many studies have assessed the efficacy of evidence-based guidelines in improving patient outcomes in the management of heart failure; however, there is limited data on how these guidelines are applied in clinical practice.Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional approach was used to examine a physician’s adherence to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society’s (CCS) most recent practice guidelines on managing heart failure. Data was collected from electronic hospital health records and patient charts of patients enrolled in a heart function clinic. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were done to compare current clinical practices related to investigations, treatment, and follow-up to the guidelines.Results: A total of 37 patients met inclusion criteria for this study (n=37). The majority of patients were males, 81%, with an average age of 71 years, 10 medications with 5.5 comorbidities. Recommendations regarding wait times, frequency of follow-up, and blood work were met 97%, 78%, and 64% of participants, respectively with most patients being reassessed more frequently than the guideline recommendation. Medical therapy recommendations were met in over 70% of participants. All participants had EF assessments as frequently or more frequently than guideline requirements.Conclusion: Overall, the Heart Function Clinic practices assessed in this study align well with the current guidelines recommended by the CCS. Although this study is by no means comprehensive, it provides an initial glimpse into how practice guidelines may be applied in clinical practice and identifies areas where further work needs to be done.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".