International Comparison of Quality Indicators for Adults Hospitalized for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited international agreement on defining care quality for the millions of people hospitalized with heart failure worldwide. Our objective was to compare and measure agreement across existing internationally published quality indicators (QIs) for the care of adults hospitalized for heart failure. METHODS: Systematic review and evidence gap map of internationally published articles reporting on QIs for adults hospitalized for heart failure, using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TRIP from inception to July 18, 2022. Narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics characterized included articles and QIs using the Donabedian Framework of Structural, Process, and Outcomes. The methodological quality of QI sets was assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation instrument. Agreement about QIs was defined as having at least 3 different cardiovascular societies recommend its use. An evidence gap map displayed each QI according to its clinically relevant category, methodological quality, and reporting articles. RESULTS: Fourteen articles from 11 societies reported 75 unique QIs; 53 QIs were process, 16 were structural, and 7 were outcome measures. There was limited agreement on individual QIs across sets as a minority were recommended by ≥3 societies (12%; 9/75 QIs). The most common QIs included postdischarge follow-up (73%, 8/11 societies), specific pharmacotherapy (64%, 7/11 societies), patient education (45%, 5/11 societies), assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (45%, 5/11 societies), 30-day readmission rate (45%, 5/11 societies), cardiac rehabilitation (36%, 4/11 societies), and multidisciplinary management (27%, 3/11 societies). CONCLUSIONS: There was little agreement on defining high-quality care and limited agreement on measures including postdischarge follow-up, specific pharmacotherapies, patient education, assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction, 30-day readmission, cardiac rehabilitation, and multidisciplinary management. These measures may define high-quality care and highlight opportunities to improve the quality of care for adults hospitalized for heart failure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".