Quality Indicators in Patient Referral Documents for Heart Failure in Japan.

This study examined quality indicators (QIs) for heart failure (HF) in patients' referral documents (PRDs).We conducted a nationwide questionnaire survey to identify information that general practitioners (GPs) would like hospital cardiologists (HCs) to include in PRDs and that HCs actually include in PRDs. The percentage of GPs that desired each item included in PRDs was converted into a deviation score, and items with a deviation score of ≥ 50 were defined as QIs. We rated the quality of PRDs provided by HCs based on QI assessment.We received 281 responses from HCs and 145 responses from GPs. The following were identified as QIs: 1) HF cause; 2) B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-BNP concentration; 3) left ventricular ejection fraction or echocardiography; 4) body weight; 5) education of patients and their families on HF; 6) physical function, and 7) functions of daily living. Based on QI assessment, only 21.7% of HCs included all seven items in their PRDs. HCs specializing in HF and institutions with many full-time HCs were independently associated with including the seven items in PRDs.The quality of PRDs for HF varies among physicians and hospitals, and standardization is needed based on QI assessment.

Differences in Priorities for Heart Failure Management Between Cardiologists and General Practitioners in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to clarify the current status and issues of community collaboration in heart failure (HF) using a nationwide questionnaire survey.Methods and Results:We conducted a survey among hospital cardiologists and general practitioners (GPs) using a web-based questionnaire developed with the Delphi method, to assess the quality of community collaboration in HF. We received responses from 46 of the 47 prefectures in Japan, including from 281 hospital cardiologists and 145 GPs. The survey included the following characteristics and issues regarding community collaboration. (1) Hospital cardiologists prioritized medical intervention for preventing HF hospitalization and death whereas GPs prioritized supporting the daily living of patients and their families. (2) Hospital cardiologists have not provided information that meets the needs of GPs, and few regions have a community-based system that allows for the sharing of information about patients with HF. (3) In the transition to home care, there are few opportunities for direct communication between hospitals and community staff, and consultation systems are not well developed. CONCLUSIONS: The current study clarified the real-world status and issues of community collaboration for HF in Japan, especially the differences in priorities for HF management between hospital cardiologists and GPs. Our data will contribute to the future direction and promotion of community collaboration in HF management.