An Innovative Patient-Centred Approach to Heart Failure Management: The Best Care Heart Failure Integrated Disease-Management Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe management of heart failure (HF) is challenging because of the complexities in recommended therapies. Integrated disease management (IDM) is an effective model, promoting guideline directed care, however, the impact of IDM in the community setting requires further evaluation.MethodsA retrospective evaluation of community-based IDM. Patient characteristics were described, and evaluation of outcomes using a pre- and post-intervention design were HF-related health service use, quality of life, and concordance with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).Results715 patients were treated in the program (2016 to 2023), 219 in a community specialist clinic and 496 in 25 primary care clinics. The overall cohort was predominantly male (60%), mean age of 73.5 years (±10.7), and 60% with HF reduced ejection fraction.In patients with ≥6 months of follow-up (N=267), pre vs post annualized rates of HF-related acute health services decreased from 36.3 to 8.5 hospitalizations/100 patients/year, p<0.0001, 31.8 to 13.1 ED visits/100 patients/year, p<0.0001, and 152.8 to 110.0 urgent physician visits/100 patients/year, p=0.0001. GDMT improved; patients receiving triple therapy and quadruple therapy increased by 10.1% (95%CI;2.4%,17.8%) and 19.6% (95%CI;12.0%,27.3%), respectively. Within these groups optimal dosing was achieved in 42.5% (95%CI;32.0%,53.6%) and 35.0% (95%CI;23.1%,48.4%), respectively. In patients with at least one follow-up (N=286) over 50% experienced a clinically relevant improvement in quality of life.ConclusionA community-based IDM program for HF, may reduce HF-related acute health service use, improve quality of life and GDMT. These encouraging preliminary outcomes from a real-world program evaluation require confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".