A National Survey of Cardiologists on Scope of Practice, Knowledge Gaps, and Educational Priorities in Adult Congenital Heart Disease Care in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The increasing number of people with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) leads to greater involvement of non-ACHD cardiologists in their care. Defining and supporting the educational priorities of non-ACHD cardiologists is key to ensure care of this population. Methods: Between November 2023 and March 2024, Canadian cardiologists were invited to participate via email and the Canadian Cardiology Society bulletin. They self-identified as ACHD or non-ACHD cardiologists. The survey explored (1) self-identified knowledge gaps of non-ACHD cardiologists, (2) current scope of practice of non-ACHD cardiologists, and (3) ACHD perspectives on the recommended scope of practice of non-ACHD cardiologists. Educational priorities were defined as diagnoses or topics frequently identified as self-identified knowledge gaps or in the current or recommended scope of practice. Results: A total of 133 of 1263 Canadian Cardiology Society members participated, of whom 32 were ACHD specialists. Thirty-three percent of non-ACHD cardiologists did not have an ACHD specialist on-site, and 24% indicated that there was no ACHD specialist within 100 km. Non-ACHD cardiologists encountered patients with ACHD in the inpatient (42%) and outpatient settings (42%), whereas ACHD cardiologists predominantly encountered outpatients (81%). Frequent self-identified knowledge gaps included great complexity diagnoses and management of pregnancy, arrhythmias, and heart failure. Recommended and current scope of practice involved simple and moderate diagnoses. Conclusions: Targeted educational resources for non-ACHD cardiologists should initially focus on the identified educational priorities, including simple and some moderate diagnoses, a primer on great complexity diagnoses, acute management of heart failure and arrhythmias, and a primer on pregnancy in patients with ACHD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".