Feasibility of evidence-based diagnosis and management of heart failure in older people in care: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Effect of Intensive Nurse-Led Optimization of Heart Failure Medications in Patients With Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Prescribing of recommended medications for heart failure (HF) is suboptimal, leaving patients at a high risk of death or rehospitalization post discharge. Nurse-led titration (NLT) clinics are one strategy that could potentially improve the prescription of these medications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to determine the effect of NLT clinics on all-cause mortality, all-cause or HF rehospitalizations, and adverse effects in patients with HF.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized controlled trials comparing NLT of β-blocking agents, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and/or angiotensin receptor blockers to optimization by another health professional in patients with HF. We used the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method or meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity between studies using χ 2 and I2 .

RESULTS

Eight studies with 2025 participants were included. Participants in the NLT group experienced a lower rate of all-cause rehospitalizations (relative risk, 0.76, 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.85; moderate quality of evidence) and less HF-related rehospitalizations (relative risk, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.66; high quality of evidence) compared with the usual care group. All-cause mortality was lower in the NLT group (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.92; moderate quality of evidence) compared with the usual care group. Authors of one study reported no adverse events, and another study found one adverse event.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that NLT clinics may improve optimization of guideline-recommended medications with the potential to reduce rehospitalization and improve survival in a cohort of patients known for their poor outcomes.

Heart failure in nursing homes: A scoping review of educational interventions for optimising care provision

Background

Heart failure has an estimated global prevalence of 64.3 million cases, with an average age of a person living with heart failure at 75.2 years. Approximately 20% of residents living in nursing homes (a long-term residential care environment for some individuals) report living with heart failure. Residents living with heart failure in nursing home environments are often frail, have reduced quality of life, higher rates of rehospitalisation and mortality, and greater complications in heart failure management. Further, nursing home staff often lack the knowledge and skills required to provide the necessary care for those living with heart failure. Interventions for improving heart failure management in nursing homes have proven effective, yet there is a lack of understanding regarding interventions for optimising care provision. The aim of this review was to synthesise the current evidence on educational interventions to optimise care provided to people with heart failure in nursing homes.

Methods

A scoping review with four databases searched: Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Relevant reference lists were searched manually for additional records. Studies of nursing home staff or resident outcomes associated with changes in care provision (i.e., resident quality of life, staff knowledge of heart failure) were included. Results from the charting data process were collated into themes: intervention outcomes, changes to practice, and implementation and process evaluation.

Results

Seven papers were deemed eligible for inclusion. Most studies (n=6) were comprised of nursing home staff only, with one comprised only of residents. Study aims were to improve heart failure knowledge, interprofessional communication, heart failure assessment and management. Positive changes in staff outcomes were observed, with improvements in knowledge, self-efficacy, and confidence in providing care reported. No difference was reported concerning nursing home resident outcomes. Interprofessional communication and staff ability to conduct heart failure assessments improved post-intervention. Changes to practice were mixed, with issues around sustainability reported. Nursing home staff highlighted their appreciation towards receiving education, recommending that videos, images, and humour could improve the intervention content.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of evidence around educational interventions to support residents living with heart failure in nursing homes. However, available evidence suggests that educational interventions in nursing homes may improve care through improving staff self-efficacy and confidence in providing care, heart failure knowledge and interprofessional communication. The complexity of implementing educational interventions in the nursing home setting must be considered during the development process to improve implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability.

Clinical Outcomes With Nurse-Coordinated Multidisciplinary Care in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend nurse-inclusive multidisciplinary care for patients with heart failure (HF). However, there is no meta-analysis that focuses specifically on the impact of nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care. Considering this literature gap, we conducted this review that seeks to systematically synthesize the current evidence available regarding the impact of nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care on clinical outcomes in patients with HF. A comprehensive search was done using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from inception till July 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care with usual care in adult patients (>18 years) with acute or chronic HF. Data about all-cause mortality, HF-related hospitalizations, and all-cause hospitalizations was extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forrest plots were generated using the random effects model. A total of 30 RCTs were included in the analysis with a total of 7950 HF patients. Our pooled analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in HF patients who received nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72-0.88, P = 0.0001). Similarly, there was a significantly lesser risk of HF-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.45-0.71, P = 0.00001) and all-cause hospitalizations (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.70-0.87, P = 0.0001) among HF patients with nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care as compared to the usual care. Nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care significantly reduces the risk of all-cause mortality, HF-related hospitalizations, and all-cause hospitalizations in HF patients' posthospital discharge.

Pharmacist- and Nurse-Led Medical Optimization in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional approaches to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) management often lead to delayed initiation and titration of therapies in patients with heart failure. This study sought to characterize alternative models of care involving nonphysician provider-led GDMT interventions and their associations with therapy use and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing nonphysician provider-led GDMT initiation and/or uptitration interventions vs usual physician care (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022334661). We queried PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform for peer-reviewed studies from database inception to July 31, 2022. In the meta-analysis, we used RCT data only and leveraged random-effects models to estimate pooled outcomes. Primary outcomes were GDMT initiation and titration to target dosages by therapeutic class. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations.

RESULTS

We reviewed 33 studies, of which 17 (52%) were randomized controlled trials with median follow-ups of 6 months; 14 (82%) trials evaluated nurse interventions, and the remainder assessed pharmacists' interventions. The primary analysis pooled data from 16 RCTs, which enrolled 5268 patients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) for renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) and beta-blocker initiation were 2.09 (95% CI 1.05-4.16; I2 = 68%) and 1.91 (95% CI1.35-2.70; I2 = 37%), respectively. Outcomes were similar for uptitration of RASI (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.24-3.20; I2 = 77%) and beta-blocker (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.29-3.83; I2 = 66%). No association was found with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist initiation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47-2.19). There were lower rates of mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.04; I2 = 12%) and hospitalization due to HF (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-1.01; I2 = 25%) across intervention arms, but these differences were small and not statistically significant. Prediction intervals were wide due to moderate-to-high heterogeneity across trial populations and interventions. Subgroup analyses by provider type did not show significant effect modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist- and nurse-led interventions for GDMT initiation and/or uptitration improved guideline concordance. Further research evaluating newer therapies and titration strategies integrated with pharmacist- and/or nurse-based care may be valuable.

Which interventions are effective at decreasing or increasing emergency department attendances or hospital admissions from long-term care facilities? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

UK long-term care facility residents account for 185 000 emergency hospital admissions each year. Avoidance of unnecessary hospital transfers benefits residents, reduces demand on the healthcare systems but is difficult to implement. We synthesised evidence on interventions that influence unplanned hospital admissions or attendances by long-term care facility residents.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2012 to 2022, building on a review published in 2013. We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated interventions that influence (decrease or increase) acute hospital admissions or attendances of long-term care facility residents. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed using Cochrane Risk Of Bias-2 and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Forty-three randomised studies were included in this review. A narrative synthesis was conducted and the weight of evidence described with vote counting. Advance care planning and goals of care setting appear to be effective at reducing hospitalisations from long-term care facilities. Other effective interventions, in order of increasing risk of bias, were: nurse practitioner/specialist input, palliative care intervention, influenza vaccination and enhancing access to intravenous therapies in long-term care facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors that affect hospitalisation and emergency department attendances of long-term care facility residents are complex. This review supports the already established use of advance care planning and influenza vaccination to reduce unscheduled hospital attendances. It is likely that more than one intervention will be needed to impact on healthcare usage across the long-term care facility population. The findings of this review are useful to identify effective interventions that can be combined, as well as highlighting interventions that either need evaluation or are not effective at decreasing healthcare usage.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020169604.

Optimal effectiveness of heart failure management - an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce (re)hospitalizations in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major health concern, which accounts for 1-2% of all hospital admissions. Nevertheless, there remains a knowledge gap concerning which interventions contribute to effective prevention of HF (re)hospitalization. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to systematically review meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, and Medline to identify eligible studies published in the English language in the past 10 years. Primarily, to synthesize the meta-analyzed data, a best-evidence synthesis was used in which meta-analyses were classified based on level of validity. Secondarily, all unique RCTS were extracted from the meta-analyses and examined. A total of 44 meta-analyses were included which encompassed 186 unique RCTs. Strong or moderate evidence suggested that catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy, cardiac rehabilitation, telemonitoring, and RAAS inhibitors could reduce (re)hospitalization. Additionally, limited evidence suggested that multidisciplinary clinic or self-management promotion programs, beta-blockers, statins, and mitral valve therapy could reduce HF hospitalization. No, or conflicting evidence was found for the effects of cell therapy or anticoagulation. This umbrella review highlights different levels of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. It could guide future guideline development in optimizing care pathways for heart failure patients.

Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline-recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home-based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different multidisciplinary HF DMPs in relation to their recruitment setting and involvement of primary care health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane between 2000 and 2020 using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our meta-analysis included 19 randomized controlled trials (7577 patients), classified according to recruitment setting and involvement of primary care professionals. Thirteen studies recruited in the hospital (n = 5243 patients) and six in the community (n = 2334 patients). Only six studies involved primary care professionals (n = 3427 patients), with two of these recruited in the community (n = 225 patients). Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruited in the community had no significant effect on all-cause and HF readmissions nor on mortality, irrespective of primary care involvement. Studies that recruited in the hospital demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.76, 0.98]), HF readmissions (0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89]), and all-cause readmissions (0.72, 95% CI [0.60, 0.87]). However, the difference in effect size between recruitment setting and involvement of primary care was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruit in the community have no significant effect on mortality or hospital readmissions, unlike DMPs that recruit in the hospital, although the difference in effect size was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Only six multidisciplinary studies involved primary care professionals. Given demographic evolutions and the importance of integrated home-based care for patients with HF, future multidisciplinary HF DMPs should consider integrating primary care professionals and evaluating the effectiveness of this model.

Route to heart failure diagnosis in English primary care: a retrospective cohort study of variation

BACKGROUND

Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines supporting the identification of heart failure (HF) in primary care, the proportion of patients diagnosed in this setting remains low. Understanding variation in patients' routes to diagnosis will better inform HF management.

AIM

To identify the factors associated with variation in patients' routes to HF diagnosis in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective cohort study of 13 897 patients diagnosed with HF between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2013 in English primary care.

METHOD

This study used primary care electronic health records to identify routes to HF diagnosis, defined using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, and adherence to the NICE-recommended guidelines. Multilevel logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with the recommended route to HF diagnosis, and funnel plots were used to visualise variation between practices.

RESULTS

Few patients (7%, n = 976) followed the recommended route to HF diagnosis. Adherence to guidelines was significantly associated with younger age (P = 0.001), lower deprivation level (P = 0.007), HF diagnosis source (P<0.001), not having chronic pulmonary disease (P<0.001), receiving further consultation for symptom(s) suggestive of HF (P<0.001), and presenting with breathlessness (P<0.001). Route to diagnosis also varied significantly between GP practices (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The significant association of certain patient characteristics with route to HF diagnosis and the variation between GP practices raises concerns about equitable HF management. Further studies should investigate reasons for this variation to improve the diagnosis of HF in primary care. However, these must consider the complexities of a patient group often affected by frailty and multiple comorbidities.

Disease management interventions for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorised as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries.Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126).Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32).We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44).Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455).Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care.Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life.Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness.The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.

Heart Failure Management in Nursing Homes: A Scoping Literature Review

Heart failure (HF) affects 20% of nursing home (NH) residents, causing high morbidity and mortality. The optimal approach to HF management in NHs remains elusive. We conducted a scoping review of published guidelines and HF management interventions in NHs. A search for English publications since 1990 was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus, for scientific statements, guidelines, recommendations, or intervention studies that addressed at least 1 principle of HF management. Of 2545 records retrieved, 19 articles were retained after screening, and 2 additional articles identified through reference list manual searches. Six articles represented 5 guidelines and 15 described interventions. All guidelines endorsed the applicability of general HF guidelines to NH residents, tailored to comorbidities, frailty, and advance care preferences. Four addressed quality assurance but not feasibility and sustainability. Methodological quality of the interventions was poor, although results suggest that guideline-based HF management in NHs can improve nursing staff knowledge and job satisfaction, prescribing, and reduce acute care utilization. Clinically-based education for staff, and access to specialist mentorship are important. NH physician involvement was limited, and resident/family education potentially ineffective. Concerns about feasibility, sustainability, and quality assurance were identified in most interventions, and advance care planning was rarely addressed. HF guidelines for NH support the applicability of general HF guidelines to the care of NH residents, and published interventions suggest that guideline-based HF management in NHs is effective. Future work should support greater physician and resident engagement, advance care planning, and provide robust guidelines on developing feasible and sustainable interventions.

Implementation of an interprofessional communication and collaboration intervention to improve care capacity for heart failure management in long-term care

Heart failure affects up to 20% of nursing home residents and is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and transfers to acute care. A major barrier to heart failure management in nursing home settings is limited interprofessional communication. Guideline-based heart failure management programs in nursing homes can reduce hospitalisation rates, though sustainability is limited when interprofessional communication is not addressed. A pilot intervention, 'Enhancing Knowledge and Interprofessional Care for Heart Failure', was implemented on two units in two conveniently selected nursing homes to optimise interprofessional care processes amongst the care team. A core heart team was established, and participants received tailored education focused on heart failure management principles and communication processes, as well as weekly mentoring. Our previous work provided evidence for this intervention's acceptability and implementation fidelity. This paper focuses on the preliminary impact of the intervention on staff heart failure knowledge, communication, and interprofessional collaboration. To determine the initial impact of the intervention on selected staff outcomes, we employed a qualitative design, using a social constructivist interpretive framework. Findings indicated a perceived increase in team engagement, interprofessional collaboration, communication, knowledge about heart failure, and improved clinical outcomes. Individual interviews with staff revealed innovative ways to enhance communication, supporting one another with knowledge and engagement in collaborative practices with residents and families. Engaging teams, through the establishment of core heart teams, was successful to develop interprofessional communication processes for heart failure management. Further steps to be undertaken include assessing the sustainability and effectiveness of this approach with a larger sample.

Enhancing Knowledge and InterProfessional care for Heart Failure (EKWIP-HF) in long-term care: a pilot study

Background

Heart failure (HF) affects 20% of long-term care (LTC) residents and is associated with significant morbidity, acute care visits, and mortality. Barriers to HF management are staff knowledge gaps and ineffective interprofessional (IP) communication. This pilot study assessed the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of an intervention to (1) improve HF knowledge; (2) improve IP communication; and (3) integrate improved knowledge and communication processes into work routines.

Methods

The intervention provides multimodal IP education about HF in LTC, including specialist-supported bedside teaching. It was piloted on single units in two facilities. A mixed-methods repeated-measures approach was used to collect qualitative and quantitative process and outcome data at baseline and 6 months post-intervention.

Results

Results were similar at both sites. Participants developed optimized IP communication to promote HF care. Results indicate a perceived increase in staff confidence and self-efficacy, strengthened assessment and clinical proficiency skills, and more effective IP collaboration. Staff deemed the intervention useful and feasible.

Conclusions

This pilot study suggests that a novel intervention in which HF-specific knowledge is applied by LTC staff to improve IP collaboration in their own work place is acceptable and feasible and has a favourable preliminary impact on staff knowledge and IP communication.

Managing Heart Failure in Long-Term Care: Recommendations from an Interprofessional Stakeholder Consultation

Insuffisance cardiaque (IC) affecte autant que 20 pour cent des résidents en soins de longue durée (SLD), et est associée à la morbidité substantielle, la mortalité et l’utilisation des services de santé. L’objectif de notre étude était de formuler des recommandations sur la mise en œuvre de processus pour prendre soin de l’insuffisance cardiaque dans SLD. Un processus de consultation itérative triphasé avec les parties prenantes a été guidé par la participation d’un panel d’experts et a servi à élaborer des recommandations. Dix-sept recommandations ont été faites. Éléments clés des celles-ci se concentrent sur l’amélioration de la communication interprofessionnelle et accroître les connaissances relatives à l’insuffisance cardiaque entre tous les intervenants dans SLD. Des recommandations systématiques incluent améliorer la communication entre les foyers de SLD et soins aigus et autres prestataires de santé externes, et développer des interventions dans l’ensemble des installations afin de réduire les apports de sodium alimentaire et d’augmenter l’activité physique.

Non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing for acute and chronic disease management in primary and secondary care

BACKGROUND

A range of health workforce strategies are needed to address health service demands in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Non-medical prescribing involves nurses, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and physician assistants substituting for doctors in a prescribing role, and this is one approach to improve access to medicines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess clinical, patient-reported, and resource use outcomes of non-medical prescribing for managing acute and chronic health conditions in primary and secondary care settings compared with medical prescribing (usual care).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases on 19 July 2016. We also searched the grey literature and handsearched bibliographies of relevant papers and publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies (with at least two intervention and two control sites) and interrupted time series analysis (with at least three observations before and after the intervention) comparing: 1. non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing in acute care; 2. non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing in chronic care; 3. non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing in secondary care; 4 non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing in primary care; 5. comparisons between different non-medical prescriber groups; and 6. non-medical healthcare providers with formal prescribing training versus those without formal prescribing training.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed study quality with discrepancies resolved by discussion. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies according to EPOC criteria. We undertook meta-analyses using the fixed-effect model where studies were examining the same treatment effect and to account for small sample sizes. We compared outcomes to a random-effects model where clinical or statistical heterogeneity existed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 46 studies (37,337 participants); non-medical prescribing was undertaken by nurses in 26 studies and pharmacists in 20 studies. In 45 studies non-medical prescribing as a component of care was compared with usual care medical prescribing. A further study compared nurse prescribing supported by guidelines with usual nurse prescribing care. No studies were found with non-medical prescribing being undertaken by other health professionals. The education requirement for non-medical prescribing varied with country and location.A meta-analysis of surrogate markers of chronic disease (systolic blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein) showed positive intervention group effects. There was a moderate-certainty of evidence for studies of blood pressure at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -5.31 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.46 to -4.16; 12 studies, 4229 participants) and low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.14; 7 studies, 1469 participants); we downgraded the certainty of evidence from high due to considerations of serious inconsistency (considerable heterogeneity), multifaceted interventions, and variable prescribing autonomy. A high-certainty of evidence existed for comparative studies of glycated haemoglobin management at 12 months (MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.38; 6 studies, 775 participants). While there appeared little difference in medication adherence across studies, a meta-analysis of continuous outcome data from four studies showed an effect favouring patient adherence in the non-medical prescribing group (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; 4 studies, 700 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for adherence to moderate due to the serious risk of performance bias. While little difference was seen in patient-related adverse events between treatment groups, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low due to indirectness, as the range of adverse events may not be related to the intervention and selective reporting failed to adequately report adverse events in many studies.Patients were generally satisfied with non-medical prescriber care (14 studies, 7514 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence from high to moderate due to indirectness, in that satisfaction with the prescribing component of care was only addressed in one study, and there was variability of satisfaction measures with little use of validated tools. A meta-analysis of health-related quality of life scores (SF-12 and SF-36) found a difference favouring usual care for the physical component score (MD 1.17, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.17), but not the mental component score (MD 0.58, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.55). However, the quality of life measurement may more appropriately reflect composite care rather than the prescribing component of care, and for this reason we downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate due to indirectness of the measure of effect. A wide variety of resource use measures were reported across studies with little difference between groups for hospitalisations, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits. In the majority of studies reporting medication use, non-medical prescribers prescribed more drugs, intensified drug doses, and used a greater variety of drugs compared to usual care medical prescribers.The risk of bias across studies was generally low for selection bias (random sequence generation), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), and reporting bias (selective reporting). There was an unclear risk of selection bias (allocation concealment) and for other biases. A high risk of performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) existed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that non-medical prescribers, practising with varying but high levels of prescribing autonomy, in a range of settings, were as effective as usual care medical prescribers. Non-medical prescribers can deliver comparable outcomes for systolic blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein, medication adherence, patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life. It was difficult to determine the impact of non-medical prescribing compared to medical prescribing for adverse events and resource use outcomes due to the inconsistency and variability in reporting across studies. Future efforts should be directed towards more rigorous studies that can clearly identify the clinical, patient-reported, resource use, and economic outcomes of non-medical prescribing, in both high-income and low-income countries.

Does case management for patients with heart failure based in the community reduce unplanned hospital admissions? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials (non-RCTs, NRCTs) is to investigate the effectiveness and related costs of case management (CM) for patients with heart failure (HF) predominantly based in the community in reducing unplanned readmissions and length of stay (LOS).

SETTING

CM initiated either while as an inpatient, or on discharge from acute care hospitals, or in the community and then continuing on in the community.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a diagnosis of HF and resident in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

INTERVENTION

CM based on nurse coordinated multicomponent care which is applicable to the primary care-based health systems.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes of interest were unplanned (re)admissions, LOS and any related cost data. Secondary outcomes were primary healthcare resources.

RESULTS

22 studies were included: 17 RCTs and 5 NRCTs. 17 studies described hospital-initiated CM (n=4794) and 5 described community-initiated CM of HF (n=3832). Hospital-initiated CM reduced readmissions (rate ratio 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.92), p=0.008) and LOS (mean difference -1.28 days (95% CI -2.04 to -0.52), p=0.001) in favour of CM compared with usual care. 9 trials described cost data of which 6 reported no difference between CM and usual care. There were 4 studies of community-initiated CM versus usual care (2 RCTs and 2 NRCTs) with only the 2 NRCTs showing a reduction in admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital-initiated CM can be successful in reducing unplanned hospital readmissions for HF and length of hospital stay for people with HF. 9 trials described cost data; no clear difference emerged between CM and usual care. There was limited evidence for community-initiated CM which suggested it does not reduce admission.

Nurse-led titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, and angiotensin receptor blockers for people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is associated with high mortality and hospital readmissions. Beta-adrenergic blocking agents, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) can improve survival and reduce hospital readmissions and are recommended as first-line therapy in the treatment of heart failure. Evidence has also shown that there is a dose-dependent relationship of these medications with patient outcomes. Despite this evidence, primary care physicians are reluctant to up-titrate these medications. New strategies aimed at facilitating this up-titration are warranted. Nurse-led titration (NLT) is one such strategy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in terms of safety and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL Issue 11 of 12, 19/12/2014), MEDLINE OVID (1946 to November week 3 2014), and EMBASE Classic and EMBASE OVID (1947 to 2014 week 50). We also searched reference lists of relevant primary studies, systematic reviews, clinical trial registries, and unpublished theses sources. We used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and/or ARBs comparing the optimisation of these medications by a nurse to optimisation by another health professional in patients with HFrEF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (AD & JC) independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. We contacted primary authors if we required additional information. We examined quality of evidence using the GRADE rating tool for RCTs. We analysed extracted data by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous data to measure effect sizes of intervention group compared with usual-care group. Meta-analyses used the fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed heterogeneity between studies by Chi(2) and I(2).

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies (1684 participants) in the review. One study enrolled participants from a residential care facility, and the other six studies from primary care and outpatient clinics. All-cause hospital admission data was available in four studies (556 participants). Participants in the NLT group experienced a lower rate of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88, high-quality evidence) and fewer hospital admissions related to heart failure (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, moderate-quality evidence) compared to the usual-care group. Six studies (902 participants) examined all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality was also lower in the NLT group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.92, moderate-quality evidence) compared to usual care. Approximately 27 deaths could be avoided for every 1000 people receiving NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs. Only three studies (370 participants) reported outcomes on all-cause and heart failure-related event-free survival. Participants in the NLT group were more likely to remain event free compared to participants in the usual-care group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77, moderate-quality evidence). Five studies (966 participants) reported on the number of participants reaching target dose of beta-adrenergic blocking agents. This was also higher in the NLT group compared to usual care (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.47, low-quality evidence). However, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity in this pooled analysis. We rated the risk of bias in these studies as high mainly due to a lack of clarity regarding incomplete outcome data, lack of reporting on adverse events associated with the intervention, and the inability to blind participants and personnel. Participants in the NLT group reached maximal dose of beta-adrenergic blocking agents in half the time compared with participants in usual care. Two studies reported on adverse events; one of these studies stated there were no adverse events, and the other study found one adverse event but did not specify the type or severity of the adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Participants in the NLT group experienced fewer hospital admissions for any cause and an increase in survival and number of participants reaching target dose within a shorter time period. However, the quality of evidence regarding the proportion of participants reaching target dose was low and should be interpreted with caution. We found high-quality evidence supporting NLT as one strategy that may improve the optimisation of beta-adrenergic blocking agents resulting in a reduction in hospital admissions. Despite evidence of a dose-dependent relationship of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs with improving outcomes in patients with HFrEF, the translation of this evidence into clinical practice is poor. NLT is one strategy that facilitates the implementation of this evidence into practice.

Perspectives of Primary-Care Providers on Heart Failure in Long-Term Care Homes

L'insuffisance cardiaque (IC) est fréquente chez les résidents en soins de longue durée (SLD), et peut représenter 40 pour cent des transferts aux soins aigus. Des lignes directrices de l’IC de la Société canadienne de cardiologie approuvent les traitements standards, mais les résidents de SLD sont moins susceptibles de recevoir un traitement.* Cette étude qualitative a utilisé des groupes de discussion pour explorer les perceptions, de 18 médécins et infirmières praticiennes dans trois foyers de l’Ontario, des pratiques de soins de l’IC et les défis de SLD. Par exemple, les participants ont rapporté les défis concernant aptitudes diagnostiques et les connaissances procédurales de l’IC. Ils ont également identifié la nécessité de la collaboration interprofessionnelle et la clarification des rôles pour améliorer les soins et les résultats de l’IC. Pour résoudre ces problèmes, les interventions multi-modales et l'enseignement de chevet sont requis. Le leadership a été considéré comme essentielle pour améliorer les soins de l’IC. Plusieurs préoccupations ont surgi concernant les lacunes dans les connaissances et les déficits cliniques chez les fournisseurs de soins primaires qui traitent l'insuffisance cardiaque chez les résidents de SLD. Pour améliorer les soins de l'IC à long terme, des solutions éducatives et interprofessionnelles multi-modales et cliniquement ciblées sont nécessaires.

Barriers to accurate diagnosis and effective management of heart failure have not changed in the past 10 years: a qualitative study and national survey

OBJECTIVES

To explore changes in healthcare professionals' views about the diagnosis and management of heart failure since a study in 2003.

DESIGN

Focus groups and a national online cross-sectional survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Focus groups (n=8 with a total of 56 participants) were conducted in the North East of England using a phenomenological framework and purposive sampling, informing a UK online survey (n=514).

RESULTS

4 categories were identified as contributing to variations in the diagnosis and management of heart failure. Three previously known categories included: uncertainty about clinical practice, the value of clinical guidelines and tensions between individual and organisational practice. A new category concerned uncertainty about end-of-life care. Survey responses found that confidence varied among professional groups in diagnosing left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD): 95% of cardiologists, 93% of general physicians, 66% of general practitioners (GPs) and 32% of heart failure nurses. For heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), confidence levels were much lower: 58% of cardiologists, 43% of general physicians, 7% of GPs and 6% of heart failure nurses. Only 5-35% of respondents used natriuretic peptides for LVSD or HFpEF. Confidence in interpreting test findings was fundamental to the use of all diagnostic tests. Clinical guidelines were reported to be helpful when diagnosing LVSD by 33% of nurses and 50-56% of other groups, but fell to 5-28% for HFpEF. Some GPs did not routinely initiate diuretics (23%), ACE-inhibitors (22%) or β-blockers (38%) for LVSD for reasons including historical teaching, perceived side effects and burden of monitoring. For end-of-life care, there was no consensus about responsibility for heart failure management.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported differences in the way heart failure is diagnosed and managed have changed little in the past decade. Variable access to diagnostic tests, modes of care delivery and non-uniform management approaches persist. The current National Health Service (NHS) context may not be conducive to addressing these issues.

"It's Somebody else's responsibility" - perceptions of general practitioners, heart failure nurses, care home staff, and residents towards heart failure diagnosis and management for older people in long-term care: a qualitative interview study

Background

Older people in care-facilities may be less likely to access gold standard diagnosis and treatment for heart failure (HF) than non residents; little is understood about the factors that influence this variability. This study aimed to examine the experiences and expectations of clinicians, care-facility staff and residents in interpreting suspected symptoms of HF and deciding whether and how to intervene.

Methods

This was a nested qualitative study using in-depth interviews with older residents with a diagnosis of heart failure (n=17), care-facility staff (n=8), HF nurses (n=3) and general practitioners (n=5).

Results

Participants identified a lack of clear lines of responsibility in providing HF care in care-facilities. Many clinical staff expressed negative assumptions about the acceptability and utility of interventions, and inappropriately moderated residents’ access to HF diagnosis and treatment. Care-facility staff and residents welcomed intervention but experienced a lack of opportunity for dialogue about the balance of risks and benefits. Most residents wanted to be involved in healthcare decisions but physical, social and organisational barriers precluded this. An onsite HF service offered a potential solution and proved to be acceptable to residents and care-facility staff.

Conclusions

HF diagnosis and management is of variable quality in long-term care. Conflicting expectations and a lack of co-ordinated responsibility for care, contribute to a culture of benign neglect that excludes the wishes and needs of residents. A greater focus on rights, responsibilities and co-ordination may improve healthcare quality for older people in care.

Trial registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN19781227

Utility of biomarkers in the differential diagnosis of heart failure in older people: findings from the heart failure in care homes (HFinCH) diagnostic accuracy study

Background

The performance of biomarkers for heart failure (HF) in older residents in long-term care is poorly understood and has not differentiated between left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods

This is the first diagnostic accuracy study in this population to assess the differential diagnostic performance and acceptability of a range of biomarkers against a clinical diagnosis using portable echocardiography. A total of 405 residents, aged 65–100 years (mean 84.2), in 33 UK long-term care facilities were enrolled between April 2009 and June 2010.

Results

For undifferentiated HF, BNP or NT-proBNP were adequate rule-out tests but would miss one in three cases (BNP: sensitivity 67%, NPV 86%, cut-off 115 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 62%, NPV 87%, cut-off 760 pg/ml). Using higher test cut-offs, both biomarkers were more adequate tests of LVSD, but would still miss one in four cases (BNP: sensitivity 76%, NPV 97%, cut-off 145 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 73%, NPV 97%, cut-off 1000 pg/ml). At these thresholds one third of subjects would test positive and require an echocardiogram. Applying a stricter ‘rule out’ threshold (sensitivity 90%), only one in 10 cases would be missed, but two thirds of subjects would require further investigation. Biomarkers were less useful for HFpEF (BNP: sensitivity 63%, specificity 61%, cut-off 110 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 68%, specificity 56%, cut-off 477 pg/ml). Novel biomarkers (Copeptin, MR-proADM, and MR-proANP) and common signs and symptoms had little diagnostic utility.

Conclusions

No test, individually or in combination, adequately balanced case finding and rule-out for heart failure in this population; currently, in-situ echocardiography provides the only adequate diagnostic assessment.

Trial Registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN19781227