A hundred heart failure deaths: lessons learnt from the Dr Foster heart failure hospital mortality alert

How should healthcare be reported in Catalonia? Qualitative study with healthcare leaders

BACKGROUND

The Results Centre is the name of a project that, since 2012, has been openly publishing the results of each healthcare centre in Catalonia, with the idea of promoting benchmarking among centres and transparency toward society. As the project evolves, it has become increasingly necessary to adapt its contents and formats. The objective of this study is to identify the preferences and expectations of healthcare leaders regarding the Results Centre.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using the nominal group technique. Five nominal groups were created with the participation of 58 professionals (26 from hospital care, 16 from primary care, and 16 from long-term care centres). The areas of analysis were: (1) what the Results Centre of the future should be like; (2) what information needs should be addressed; and (3) what novelties should be incorporated to stimulate quality improvement. The spontaneity of ideas, intensity of recommendations, and intergroup consistency were analysed. The study was conducted in April 2019.

RESULTS

The requirements reported by the participants to be met by the Results Centre included: being a tool for benchmarking and strategic decision-making; adjusted and segmented indicators; non-clinical information (patient experience, socio-economic status, etc.); and data accessible to all stakeholders, including citizens. The ideas were consistent across the different levels of care, although the intensity of recommendations varied depending on their content.

CONCLUSIONS

Regional agencies that are accountable for health outcomes should be consistently committed to adapting to the needs of different stakeholders in the health system. This project is an example of how this requirement has been addressed in Catalonia.

Developing a contemporary community clinic for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction within the current National Health Service model

Introduction

The diagnostic and therapeutic arsenal for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) has expanded. With novel therapies (eg, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors) and firmer recommendations to optimise non-cardiac comorbidities, it is unclear if outpatient HFpEF models can adequately deliver this. We; therefore, evaluated the efficacy of an existing dedicated HFpEF clinic to find innovative ways to design a more comprehensive model tailored to the modern era of HFpEF.

Methods

A single-centre retrospective analysis of 202 HFpEF outpatients was performed over 12 months before the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics, clinic activities (eg, medication changes, lifestyle modifications, management of comorbidities) and follow-up arrangements were compared between a HFpEF and general cardiology clinic to assess their impact on mortality and morbidity at 6 and 12 months.

Results

Between the two clinic groups, the sample population was evenly matched with a typical HFpEF profile (mean age 79±9.6 years, 55% female and a high prevalence of cardiometabolic comorbidities). While follow-up practices were similar, the HFpEF clinic delivered significantly more interventions on lifestyle changes, blood pressure and heart rate control (p<0.0001) compared with the general clinic. Despite this, no significant differences in all-cause hospitalisation and mortality were observed. This may be attributed to the fact that clinic activities were primarily cardiology-focused. Importantly, non-cardiovascular admissions accounted for >60% of hospitalisation, including causes of recurrent admissions.

Conclusion

This study suggests that existing general and emerging dedicated HFpEF clinics may not be adequate in addressing the multifaceted aspects of HFpEF as clinic activities concentrated primarily on cardiological measures. Although the small cohort and short follow-up period are important limitations, this study reminds clinicians that HFpEF patients are more at risk of non-cardiac than HF-related events. We have therefore proposed a pragmatic framework that can comprehensively deliver the modern guideline-directed recommendations and management of non-cardiac comorbidities through a multidisciplinary approach.

Kolkata-Coventry comparative registry study of acute heart failure: an insight into the impact of public, private and universal health systems on patient outcomes in low-middle income cities (KOLCOV HF Study)

Introduction

Survival gaps in acute heart failure (AHF) continue to expand globally. Multinational heart failure (HF) registries have highlighted variations between countries. Whether discrepancies in HF practice and outcomes occur across different health systems (ie, private, public or universal healthcare) within a city or between countries remain unclear. Insight into organisational care is also scarce. With increasing public scrutiny of health inequalities, a study to address these limitations is timely.

Method

KOLCOV-HF study prospectively compared patients with AHF in public (Nil Ratan Sircar Hospital (NRS)) versus private (Apollo Gleneagles Hospital (AGH)) hospitals of Kolkata, India, and one with universal health coverage in a socioeconomically comparable city of Coventry, England (University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire (UHCW)). Data variables were adapted from UK’s National HF Audit programme, collected over 24 months. Predictors of in-hospital mortality and length of hospitalisation were assessed for each centre.

Results

Among 1652 patients, in-hospital mortality was highest in government-funded NRS (11.9%) while 3 miles north, AGH had significantly lower mortality (7.5%, p=0.034), similar to UHCW (8%). This could be attributed to distinct HF phenotypes and differences in clinical and organisational care. As expected, low blood pressure was associated with a significantly greater risk of death in patients served by public hospitals UHCW and NRS.

Conclusion

Marked differences in HF characteristics, management and outcomes exist intra-regionally, and between low–middle versus high-income countries across private, public and universal healthcare systems. Physicians and policymakers should take caution when applying country-level data locally when developing strategies to address local evidence-practice gaps in HF.