Remote Follow-up in a Heart Failure Pragmatic Trial: Insights From the CONNECT-HF.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials typically require study-specific visits, which can burden participants and sites. Remote follow-up, such as centralized call centers for participant-reported or site-reported, holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing the pragmatism of trials. In this secondary analysis of the CONNECT-HF (Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement For HF) trial, we aimed to evaluate the completeness and validity of the remote follow-up process. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CONNECT-HF trial evaluated the effect of a post-discharge quality-improvement intervention for heart failure compared to usual care for up to 1 year. Suspected events were reported either by participants or by health care proxies through a centralized call center or by sites through medical-record queries. When potential hospitalization events were suspected, additional medical records were collected and adjudicated. Among 5942 potential hospitalizations, 18% were only participant-reported, 28% were reported by both participants and sites, and 50% were only site-reported. Concordance rates between the participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalization were high: 87% participant-reported, 86% both, and 86% site-reported. Rates of adjudicated heart failure hospitalization events among adjudicated all-cause hospitalization were lower but also consistent: 45% participant-reported, 50% both, and 50% site-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participant-only and site-only reports missed a substantial number of hospitalization events. We observed similar concordance between participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalizations. Combining participant-reported and site-reported outcomes data is important to capture and validate hospitalizations effectively in pragmatic heart failure trials.

Association between nurses' personal, professional and work characteristics, and engagement in hospital-based clinical research.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the associations between demographic, professional and other personal nurse characteristics, social support factors and comfort in conducting research with nurses' level of active participation in clinical research. DESIGN: A prospective, cross-sectional, correlational design was used. METHODS: Clinical nurses working in a multihospital healthcare system were recruited by email to complete an anonymous survey that used multiple valid and reliable scales to assess demographic and professional work characteristics, curiosity, grit, locus of control, perceived social support (for research activities), comfort in conducting research, and level of being research-active. Univariate and multivariable analyses were completed. RESULTS: Of 310 participants, 274 (88.4%) were female and mean (SD) age was 42.9 (13.1) years. After condensing 11 levels of research activity to four categories, 179 (57.7%) were not research-active, and 91 (29.4%), 26 (8.3%) and 14 (4.5%) were engaged at low, moderate, and high levels, respectively. Of 78 factors, 69 (88.5%) were associated with being research-active in univariate analyses. In multivariable analysis that adjusted for age, personal experience as a patient, years as a nurse and hours in direct patient care, professionalism characteristics, higher curiosity, internal locus of control, grit perseverance, support of a nurse scientist and nurse friends, and comfort in conducting research remained associated with higher levels of being research-active (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Research-active nurses were more likely to be engaged professionally in hospital-based activities beyond their work roles and displayed higher levels of positive psychological characteristics and mentorship that supported research capacity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Research-active nurses were more likely to have internal factors and external resources that promoted higher levels of being research-active. A strong professional governance model may enhance clinical nurses research activities.

Development and Testing of the Relational and Structural Components of Innovativeness Across Academia and Practice for Healthcare Progress Scale.

OBJECTIVE: Using data from 5 academic-practice sites across the United States, researchers developed and validated a scale to measure conditions that enable healthcare innovations. BACKGROUND: Academic-practice partnerships are a catalyst for innovation and healthcare development. However, limited theoretically grounded evidence exists to provide strategic direction for healthcare innovation across practice and academia. METHODS: Phase 1 of the analytical strategy involved scale development using 16 subject matter experts. Phase 2 involved pilot testing the scale. RESULTS: The final Innovativeness Across Academia and Practice for Healthcare Progress Scale (IA-APHPS) consisted of 7 domains: 3 relational domains, 2 structural domains, and 2 impact domains. The confirmatory factor analysis model fits well with a comparative fit index of 0.92 and a root-mean-square error of approximation of 0.06 (n = 477). CONCLUSION: As the 1st validated scale of healthcare innovation, the IA-APHPS allows nurses to use a diagnostic tool to facilitate innovative processes and outputs across academic-practice partnerships.

Overcoming walls and voids: Responsive practices that enable frontline workers to feel heard.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition that beyond frontline workers' ability to speak up, their feeling heard is also vital, both for improving work processes and reducing burnout. However, little is known about the conditions under which frontline workers feel heard. PURPOSE: This inductive qualitative study identifies barriers and facilitators to feeling heard among nurses in hospitals. METHODOLOGY: We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with registered nurses, nurse managers, and nurse practitioners across four hospitals ( N = 24) in a U.S. health system between July 2021 and March 2022. We coded with the aim of developing new theory, generating initial codes by studying fragments of data (lines and segments), examining and refining codes across transcripts, and finally engaging in focused coding across all data collected. FINDINGS: Frontline nurses who spoke up confronted two types of challenges that prevented feeling heard: (a) walls, which describe organizational barriers that lead ideas to be rejected outright (e.g., empty solicitation), and (b) voids, which describe organizational gaps that lead ideas to be lost in the system (e.g., structural mazes). We identified categories of responsive practices that promoted feeling heard over walls (boundary framing, unscripting, priority enhancing) and voids (procedural transparency, identifying a navigator). These practices appeared more effective when conducted collectively over time. CONCLUSION: Both walls and voids can prevent frontline workers from feeling heard, and these barriers may call for distinct managerial practices to address them. Future efforts to measure responsive practices and explore them in broader samples are needed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Encouraging responsive practices may help ensure that frontline health care workers feel heard.

Screening for Unrecognized HFpEF in Atrial Fibrillation and for Unrecognized Atrial Fibrillation in HFpEF.

Because of the bidirectional relationship between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), individuals with either condition require consideration of screening for the other. In this review, we summarize current evidence and rationale for screening for occult HFpEF in adults with clinical AF; and occult AF in patients with clinically recognized HFpEF. Assessment of pretest probability for occult HFpEF in symptomatic AF patients may help guide additional testing such as exercise right heart catheterization to diagnose HFpEF and guide HFpEF-specific therapies. In patients with HFpEF, AF screening will identify cases of occult AF where anticoagulation may decrease stroke risk, and correlation of previously unknown AF episodes with paroxysmal symptoms may prompt consideration for rhythm control. Therefore, screening may help clinicians understand the etiology of the often-overlapping symptoms, and it may help guide treatments to slow progression of both conditions and their complications.

Optimal Medical Therapy and Outcomes Among Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Optimal medical therapy (OMT) scoring may stratify clinical risk in real-world chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by integrating use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFrEF. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize patients and associated long-term clinical outcomes by OMT score-derived treatment groups. METHODS: CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) included U.S. outpatients with chronic HFrEF receiving ≥1 GDMT. OMT subgroups were defined as suboptimal (score <3), acceptable (score = 3), and optimal (score ≥4) by baseline use and dose of GDMT, as proposed by the HF Collaboratory consortium. Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to assess for all-cause and cardiovascular death across subgroups, after adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: The authors studied 4,582 participants enrolled in CHAMP-HF with available 2-year follow-up. Median age was 68 years, 1,327 (29%) were women, and 2,842 (62%) were White, non-Hispanic. Median OMT score across the population was 4 (Q1-Q3: 2-5), and 1,628 (35%) had suboptimal, 665 (14%) had acceptable, and 2,289 (50%) had optimal therapy. Participants with optimal treatment were younger, had higher annual household income, and were enrolled from practices with dedicated HF clinics (all P < 0.001) than participants with acceptable or suboptimal treatment. Participants with optimal treatment had lower all-cause death (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92) and cardiovascular death (adjusted HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65-0.96) than those with suboptimal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Across a large cohort of chronic ambulatory HFrEF, OMT scores stratified risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Stethoscope barriers narrative review; It's time for a strategy unfriendly to multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs).

The current standard of stethoscope hygiene doesn't eliminate the transmission of harmful pathogens, including multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). In the era of the increasing prevalence of MDRO infections, the use of new systems providing touch free barriers may improve patient safety versus traditional stethoscope cleaning practices with chemical agents. Our purpose was to provide a narrative literature review regarding barriers as an improvement over the current standard of care for stethoscope hygiene. Searching PubMed, articles were identified if they were in English and published after 1990, using the search term "stethoscope barrier", or if they were from a previously published stethoscope hygiene article using "author's name + stethoscope". Included articles evaluated or discussed stethoscope barriers. Of 28 manuscripts identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers were considered superior to alternatives if they were single use, disposable, applied in a touch free fashion, were impervious to pathogens, provided an aseptic patient contact, and were acoustically invisible. Use of a practitioner's personal stethoscope with a disposable diaphragm barrier should be recommended as a new standard of care as this represents an improvement in patient safety and patient experience when compared to the disposable stethoscope or isopropyl alcohol stethoscope diaphragm cleaning.

Association of Medication Adherence and Health Status in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From the CHAMP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The foundation for managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy. Finding an association between medication adherence and patients' health status (their symptoms, function, and quality of life) can be used to underscore its importance to patients. METHODS: The association of self-reported medication adherence in US outpatients with HFrEF enrolled in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure registry from 2015 to 2017 was compared with their health status at baseline and 12 months later. A secondary analysis of changes in adherence between baseline and 6 months with 6-month health status was also performed. Medication adherence was assessed with the self-reported 4-item Morisky-Green-Levine Medication Adherence Scale, with scores ≥1 classified as nonadherent. The primary health status outcome was the disease-specific 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS; range, 0-100; higher is better). Robust linear regression models adjusted for confounders were used. RESULTS: After excluding those who died (n=316) or did not provide 12-month KCCQ (n=1285), 3495 outpatients with HFrEF were included, of whom 1108 (31.7%) reported being nonadherent. Nonadherent participants were younger, had significantly worse baseline health status (-5.83-point difference; P<0.001), and showed less improvement at 12 months (-1.7-point difference in mean change; P=0.017) than adherent participants. Among nonadherent patients at baseline, those whose adherence improved trended toward greater 6-month health status improvements than those remaining nonadherent (fully adjusted difference of 2.52 points; P=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, medication nonadherence was associated with worse health status and less improvement over the following year. Improvements in adherence were associated with better health status than remaining nonadherent, underscoring the importance of supporting adherence with guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HFrEF.