Standard vs. intensified management of heart failure to reduce healthcare costs: results of a multicentre, randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To determine if an intensified form of heart failure management programme (INT-HF-MP) based on individual profiling is superior to standard management (SM) in reducing health care costs during 12-month follow-up (primary endpoint). METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicentre randomized trial involving 787 patients (full analysis set) discharged from four tertiary hospitals with chronic HF who were randomized to SM (n = 391) or INT-HF-MP (n = 396). Mean age was 74 ± 12 years, 65% had HF with a reduced ejection fraction (31.4 ± 8.9%) and 14% were remote-dwelling. Study groups were well matched. According to Green, Amber, Red Delineation of rIsk And Need in HF (GARDIAN-HF) profiling, regardless of location, patients in the INT-HF-MP received a combination of face-to-face (home visits) and structured telephone support (STS); only 9% (`low risk') were designated to receive the same level of management as the SM group. The median cost in 2017 Australian dollars (A$1 equivalent to ∼EUR €0.7) of applying INT-HF-MP was significantly greater than SM ($152 vs. $121 per patient per month; P < 0.001), However, at 12 months, there was no difference in total health care costs for the INT-HF-MP vs. SM group (median $1579, IQR $644 to $3717 vs. $1450, IQR $564 to $3615 per patient per month, respectively). This reflected minimal differences in all-cause mortality (17.7% vs. 18.4%; P = 0.848) and recurrent hospital stay (18.6 ± 26.5 vs. 16.6 ± 24.8 days; P = 0.199) between the INT-HF-MP and SM groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: During 12-months follow-up, an INT-HF-MP did not reduce healthcare costs or improve health outcomes relative to SM.

Another look at the medical "generation gap".

A 1969 survey of attitudes held by medical students and recent graduates was repeated in 1972, using the same samples of respondents and adding a new freshman group. Findings from both surveys showed that a "generation gap" existed on many issues.Furthermore, a comparison of the two studies suggested that two kinds of attitude change are occurring simultaneously. On some issues, the next generation of physicians will probably continue to differ from their predecessors. Perhaps the primary thread woven through this cluster of attitudes is that today's medical students and young physicians perceive themselves as members of a larger structure for providing health care.However, many of the students' attitudes held early in their medical careers appear to have been modified in the process of becoming physicians. It appears that medical education continues to convey many traditional professional values to students, and it seems likely that tomorrow's physicians will retain a core of those values.