Palliation of heart failure: value-based supportive care.

OBJECTIVES: Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent condition associated with poor quality-of-life and high symptom burden. As patients reach ceilings of survival-extending interventions, their priorities may be more readily addressed through the support of palliative care services; however, the best model of care remains unestablished.We aimed to create and evaluate a cospeciality cross-boundary service model for patients with HF that better provides for their palliative care needs in the latter stages of life, while delivering a more cost-effective patient journey. METHODS: In 2016, the Heart Failure Supportive Care Service (HFSCS) was established to provide patient-centred holistic support to patients with advanced HF. Patient experience questionnaires were developed and distributed in mid-2018 and end-of-2020. Indexed hospital admission data (in-patient bed days pre-referral/post-referral) were used allowing statistical comparisons by paired t-tests. RESULTS: From 2016-2020, 236 patients were referred to the HFSCS. Overall, 75/118 questionnaires were returned. Patients felt that the HFSCS delivered compassionate care (84%) that improved symptoms and quality of life (80% and 65%). Introduction of the HFSCS resulted in a reduction in HF-related admissions: actual days 18.3 to 4 days (p<0.001), indexed days 0.05 to 0.032 days (p=0.03). Cost mapping revealed an estimated average saving of at least £10 218.36 per referral and a total estimated cost saving of approximately £2.4 million over 5 years. CONCLUSION: This service demonstrates that a cospeciality cross-boundary method of care delivery successfully provides the benefits of palliative care to patients with HF in a value-based manner, while meeting the priorities of care that matter to patients most.

Patient Views on Surgeon-specific Outcome Reporting in Vascular Surgery: Novel Validated Patient Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: SSMD are used to enhance transparency, improve quality and facilitate patient choice. The use of SSMD is controversial, but patients' views on such data are largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was therefore to explore the views of patients and to identify their priorities for outcome reporting in vascular surgery. METHODS: A prospective questionnaire study of 165 patients receiving care in a single academic vascular unit was performed. Data on patients' current understanding and use of SSMD, together with future priorities were collected. RESULTS: Of the 165 patients 80% were unaware of SSMD. 72% thought they should be made aware of the data, although 63% thought they were likely to misinterpret the results. The majority recognized the utility of SSMD to inform treatment (60%) and surgeon (53%) choice. The majority prioritize the patient-surgeon relationship (90%) and past experiences of care (71%) when making treatment decisions. A significant majority (66% vs 49%; P < 0.005) would favour hospital-level to surgeon-level data. The main patient priorities for future outcome reporting were waiting list length (56%), the quality of hospital facilities (55%), and patient satisfaction (54%). CONCLUSIONS: The aims of SSMD reporting are not currently being met, and both patients and healthcare professionals have shared concerns over the nature and usefulness of the data. Patients express a preference for hospital-level outcomes and prioritize the experience of receiving care over outcomes when making treatment decisions. Future outcome reporting should include patient-directed hospital-level metrics that are readily accessible and understood by all.

Do medical students studying in the United Kingdom have an adequate factual knowledge of basic life support?

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals have a duty to maintain basic life support (BLS) skills. This study aims to evaluate medical students' factual knowledge of BLS and the training they receive. METHODS: A cross-sectional, closed-response questionnaire was distributed to the first- and fourth-year students studying at institutions in the United Kingdom. The paper questionnaire sought to quantify respondent's previous BLS training, factual knowledge of the BLS algorithm using five multiple choice questions (MCQs), and valuate their desire for further BLS training. Students received 1 point for each correctly identified answer to the 5 MCQ's. RESULTS: A total of 3,732 complete responses were received from 21 medical schools. Eighty percent (n=2,999) of students completed a BLS course as part of their undergraduate medical studies. There was a significant difference (P<0.001) in the percentage of the fourth-year students selecting the correct answer in all the MCQ's compared to the first-year students except in identifying the correct depth of compressions required during CPR (P=0.095). Overall 10.3% (95% CI 9.9% to 10.7%) of respondents correctly identified the answer to 5 MCQ's on BLS 9% of the first-year students (n=194) and 12% of the fourth-year students (n=190). On an institutional level the proportion of students answering all MCQ's correctly ranged from 2% to 54% at different universities. Eighty-one percent of students (n=3,031) wished for more BLS training in their curriculum. CONCLUSION: Factual knowledge of BLS is poor among medical students in the UK. There is a disparity in standards of knowledge across institutions and respondents indicating that they would like more training.