CCORT/CCS quality indicators for congestive heart failure care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality indicators are measurement tools for assessing the structure, processes and outcomes of care. Although quality indicators have been developed in other countries, Canadian cardiovascular disease indicators do not exist. OBJECTIVE: To develop quality indicators for measuring and improving congestive heart failure (CHF) care in Canada. METHODS: An 11-member multidisciplinary national expert panel was selected from nominees from national medical organizations. Potential quality indicators were identified by a detailed search of published guidelines, randomized trials and outcomes studies. A two-step modified Delphi process was employed with an initial screening round of indicator ratings, followed by a national quality indicator panel meeting, where definitions of the indicators were developed using consensus methods. Indicators were designed to be measurable, using retrospective chart review and linking existing administrative databases. RESULTS: The case definition criterion was developed based on a discharge diagnosis of CHF (International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision [ICD-9] code 428.x), with diagnostic confirmation using clinical criteria. In total, 29 indicators and five test indicators were recommended. Process indicators included prescription for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers or warfarin (for atrial fibrillation) at hospital discharge. Nonpharmacological in hospital process indicators included evaluation of left ventricular function, weight measurement and selected patient education counselling instructions. Process indicators in the ambulatory setting included prescription and adherence to drug therapies and physician follow-up. Outcome indicators included mortality, readmissions and emergency visits. CONCLUSIONS: A set of Canadian quality indicators for CHF care encompassing organizational attributes, pharmacotherapy, investigations, counselling, continuity of care and disease outcomes has been developed. These quality indicators will serve as a foundation for future studies evaluating the quality of CHF care in Canada.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".