Implementation of the Comparison of Outcomes and Access to Care for Heart Failure (COACH) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Comparison of Outcomes and Access to Care for Heart Failure (COACH) trial demonstrated that use of a point-of-care risk assessment tool and a rapid ambulatory transitional heart failure clinic led to significant reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalisation among patients with acute heart failure. We report a process evaluation of COACH intervention and strategy implementation. Methods: We conducted longitudinal interviews with staff to assess barriers and facilitators to COACH implementation. Factors were coded according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Intervention mapping was conducted to identify theory-rooted strategies to address barriers and influence facilitators toward implementation. We used interviews, document reviews, and check-in calls with implementation teams to describe uptake of these strategies and their impact on implementation success over time. Results: A total of 29 interviews were conducted across 10 sites. We identified 10 factors that affected COACH implementation, which corresponded to 6 TDF and 5 CFIR domains. Some barriers were resolved within the study period, but others persisted over time. Seven implementation strategies were recommended to sites. Participants identified ample preparation time, site-specific personnel support, structural and social characteristics conducive to the intervention needs, and implementation experience as factors that facilitated implementation success. Conclusions: We supported implementation of the COACH intervention in 10 acute care hospital sites and describe the factors impacting implementation. We recommend a rapid implementation assessment to sites wishing to implement COACH, and suggest strategies that can be used to mitigate barriers and aid facilitators to improve implementation success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".