MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 189: Implementing Systematic Screening Driven By Quality Improvement Education (QIE) For Atrial Fibrillation During The Covid-19 Pandemic: Insight From Primary Care Setting In The United States

2022· article· en· W4280584357 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea M. Russo, Ginny Jacobs, Laura Lee Hall, Anne Marie Smith, Pam McFadden, Bethany Schowengerdt, Michelle Bruns, Claire I. Fisher, Jian Liang Tan, Patrice Lazure

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsAxdev Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationIntervention (counseling)Family medicinePandemicStroke (engine)MEDLINEEmergency medicineInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Asymptomatic patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) pose challenges to diagnosis. Early diagnosis can reduce morbidity and mortality. Systematic screening in primary care may result in early intervention. Objectives: We sought to examine the implementation outcomes of a systematic, team-based quality improvement education (QIE) intervention for AF screening in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: QIE intervention was implemented in academic-based (n=4) and community-based (n=2) practices to address COVID-19 challenges. Surveys administered by site identified existing approaches and provider teams developed screening protocol based on targeted education, deploying a mobile ECG device (Kardiamobile™). Patient charts were reviewed (Dec 2020 - May 2021) to determine eligibility, i.e., patients aged 65–74 (with prior stroke/TIA or two other risk factors) or aged ≥75 (with one other risk factor) without prior AF. Patient EHR data were examined for demographic/clinical data and screening outcome. Provider interviews (n=12) and validation from representative patients (n=2) accounted for sustainability of outcomes. Results: A total of 1,221 patients were evaluated for AF risk, with 408 eligible for screening. Of these, 277 (68%) were female and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc varied -score=3 (45%); score=4 (24%); score=5+ (31%). Patients (n=7; 2%) who screened positive for AF were referred or started on anticoagulation, like other primary care studies. Figure 1 shows how systematic screening was re-imagined and implemented Satisfaction and engagement increased among providers and patients - attributed, in part, to benefits of team-based planning and targeted education. Conclusion: An AF screening program was adapted to improve patient care despite COVID-19 related challenges. A QIE toolkit was launched to assist primary care practices with implementing streamlined, sustainable, and patient-engaging strategies to reduce stroke.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207