Rationale and design of the comparison of outcomes and access to care for heart failure (COACH) trial: A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is an ambulatory care sensitive condition and a leading reason for emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Improved decision-making and care may enhance safety and efficiency for patients presenting to the ED with acute HF. OBJECTIVES: We will evaluate an intervention comprised of 2 complementary components: (1) the Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade simultaneous 7- and 30-day (EHMRG30-ST) risk scores, which will inform admission-discharge decisions, and (2) a rapid outpatient follow-up (RAPID-HF) clinic for low-to-intermediate risk patients on cardiovascular readmissions or death. STUDY DESIGN: Stepped wedge cluster randomized trial with cross-sectional measurement at 10 acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Patients presenting during control and intervention periods are eligible if they have a primary ED diagnosis of HF. In the intervention periods, access to the EHMRG30-ST web calculator will become available to hospitals' internet protocol (IP) addresses, and referral to the RAPID-HF clinic will be facilitated by a study nurse navigator. Patients with a high risk EHMRG30-ST score will be admitted to hospital. The RAPID-HF clinic will accept referrals for patients: (1) with low risk 7- and 30-day EHMRG30-ST scores who are discharged directly from the ED, or (2) intermediate risk patients with hospital length of stay < 72 hours. The RAPID-HF clinic, staffed by a nurse-clinician and cardiologist, will provide care during the 30-day transition after hospital separation. CONCLUSION: This trial will determine whether novel risk stratification coupled with rapid ambulatory care achieves better outcomes than conventional decision-making and care for patients with HF.
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 | 0.038 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".