Heart failure clinic inclusion and exclusion criteria: cross-sectional study of clinic's and referring provider's perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: There are substantial variations in entry criteria for heart failure (HF) clinics, leading to variations in whom providers refer for these life-saving services. This study investigated actual versus ideal HF clinic inclusion or exclusion criteria and how that related to referring providers' perspectives of ideal criteria. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two cross-sectional surveys were administered via research electronic data capture to clinic providers and referrers (eg, cardiologists, family physicians and nurse practitioners) across Canada. MEASURES: Twenty-seven criteria selected based on the literature and HF guidelines were tested. Respondents were asked to list any additional criteria. The degree of agreement was assessed (eg, Kappa). RESULTS: Responses were received from providers at 48 clinics (37.5% response rate). The most common actual inclusion criteria were newly diagnosed HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class IIIB/IV and recent hospitalisation (each endorsed by >74% of respondents). Exclusion criteria included congenital aetiology, intravenous inotropes, a lack of specialists, some non-cardiac comorbidities and logistical factors (eg, rurality and technology access). There was the greatest discordance between actual and ideal criteria for the following: inpatient at the same institution (κ=0.14), congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension or genetic cardiomyopathies (all κ=0.36). One-third (n=16) of clinics had changed criteria, often for non-clinical reasons. Seventy-three referring providers completed the survey. Criteria endorsed more by referrers than clinics included low blood pressure with a high heart rate, recurrent defibrillator shocks and intravenous inotropes-criteria also consistent with guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable agreement on the main clinic entry criteria, but given some discordance, two levels of clinics may be warranted. Publicising evidence-based criteria and applying them systematically at referral sources could support improved HF patient care journeys and outcomes.

Impact of the method of calculating 30-day readmission rate after hospitalization for heart failure. Data from the VancOuver CoastAL Acute Heart Failure (VOCAL-AHF) registry.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day readmission rate after heart failure (HF) hospitalization is widely used to evaluate healthcare quality. Methodology may substantially influence estimated rates. We assessed the impact of different definitions on HF and all-cause readmission rates. METHODS: Readmission rates were examined in 1,835 patients discharged following HF hospitalization using 64 unique definitions derived from five methodological factors: (1) ICD-10 codes (broad vs narrow), (2) index admission selection (single admission only first-in-year vs. random sample; or multiple admissions in year with vs. without 30-day blanking period), (3) variable denominator (number alive at discharge vs. number alive at 30-days), (4) follow-up period start (discharge date vs day following discharge), and (5) annual reference-period (calendar vs fiscal). The impact of different factors was assessed using linear-regression. RESULTS: The calculated 30-day readmission rate for HF varied more than 2-fold depending solely on the methodological approach (6.5% to 15.0%). All-cause admission rates exhibited similar variation (18.8% to 29.9%). The highest rates included all consecutive index admissions (HF 11.1-15.0%, all-cause 24.0-29.9%), and lowest only one index admission per patient per year (HF 6.5-11.3%, all-cause 18.8-22.7%). When including multiple index admissions and compared to blanking the 30-days post-discharge, not blanking was associated with 2.3% higher readmission rates. Selecting a single admission per year with a first-in-year approach lowered readmission rates by 1.5%, while random-sampling admissions lowered estimates further by 5.2% (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Calculated 30-day readmission rates varied more than 2-fold by altering methods. Transparent and consistent methods are needed to ensure reproducible and comparable reporting.

Qualitative Analysis of Patient Decisional Needs for Medications to Treat Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The development of tools to support shared decision-making should be informed by patients' decisional needs and treatment preferences, which are largely unknown for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy decisions. We aimed to identify patients' decisional needs when considering HFrEF medication options. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. We recruited patients with HFrEF from 2 Canadian ambulatory HF clinics and clinicians from Canadian HF guideline panels, HF clinics, and Canadian HF Society membership. We identified themes through inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included 15 patients and 12 clinicians. Six themes and associated subthemes emerged related to HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision-making: (1) patient decisional needs included lack of awareness of a choice or options, difficult decision timing and stage, information overload, and inadequate motivation, support and resources; (2) patients' decisional conflict varied substantially, driven by unclear trade-offs; (3) treatment attribute preferences-patients focused on both benefits and downsides of treatment, whereas clinicians centered discussion on benefits; (4) quality of life-patients' definition of quality of life depended on pre-HF activity, though most patients demonstrated adaptability in adjusting their daily activities to manage HF; (5) shared decision-making process-clinicians' described a process more akin to informed consent; (6) decision support-multimedia decision aids, virtual appointments, and primary-care comanagement emerged as potential enablers of shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF have several decisional needs, which are consistent with those that may respond to decision aids. These findings can inform the development of HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision aids to address these decisional needs and facilitate shared decision-making.