Alternatives to Hospitalization: Adding the Patient Voice to Advanced Heart Failure Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced heart failure (HF) is associated with the extensive use of acute care services, especially at the end of life, often in stark contrast to the wishes of most HF patients to remain at home for as long as possible. The current Canadian model of hospital-centric care is not only inconsistent with patient goals, but also unsustainable in the setting of the current hospital-bed availability crisis across the country. Given this context, we present a narrative to discuss factors necessary for the avoidance of hospitalization in advanced HF patients. First, patients eligible for alternatives to hospitalization should be identified through comprehensive, values-based, goals-of-care discussions, including involvement of both patients and caregivers, and assessment of caregiver burnout. Second, we present pharmaceutical interventions that have shown promise in reducing HF hospitalizations. Such interventions include strategies to combat diuretic resistance, as well as nondiuretic treatments of dyspnea, and the continuation of guideline-directed medical therapies. Finally, to successfully care for advanced HF patients at home, care models, such as transitional care, telehealth, collaborative home-based palliative care programs, and home hospitals, must be robust. Care must be individualized and coordinated through an integrated care model, such as the spoke-hub-and-node model. Although barriers exist to the implementation of these models and strategies, they should not prevent clinicians from striving to provide individualized person-centred care. Doing so will not only alleviate strain on the healthcare system, but also prioritize patient goals, which is of the utmost importance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".