What is the impact of systems of care for heart failure on patients diagnosed with heart failure: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hospital admissions for heart failure are predicted to rise substantially over the next decade placing increasing pressure on the health care system. There is an urgent need to redesign systems of care for heart failure to improve evidence-based practice and create seamless transitions through the continuum of care. The aim of the review was to examine systems of care for heart failure that reduce hospital readmissions and/or mortality. METHOD: Electronic databases searched were: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, grey literature, reviewed bibliographies and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials and cohort studies from 1st January 2008 to 4th August 2015. Inclusion criteria for studies were: English language, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials and cohort studies of systems of care for patients diagnosed with heart failure and aimed at reducing hospital readmissions and/or mortality. Three reviewer authors independently assessed articles for eligibility based on title and abstract and then full-text. Quality of evidence was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised trials and GRADE rating tool for randomised controlled trials. RESULTS: We included 29 articles reporting on systems of care in the workforce, primary care, in-hospital, transitional care, outpatients and telemonitoring. Several studies found that access to a specialist heart failure team/service reduced hospital readmissions and mortality. In primary care, a collaborative model of care where the primary physician shared the care with a cardiologist, improved patient outcomes compared to a primary physician only. During hospitalisation, quality improvement programs improved the quality of inpatient care resulting in reduced hospital readmissions and mortality. In the transitional care phase, heart failure programs, nurse-led clinics, and early outpatient follow-up reduced hospital readmissions. There was a lack of evidence as to the efficacy of telemonitoring with many studies finding conflicting evidence. CONCLUSION: Redesigning systems of care aimed at improving the translation of evidence into clinical practice and transitional care can potentially improve patient outcomes in a cohort of patients known for high readmission rates and mortality.

A systematic approach to chronic heart failure care: a consensus statement.

The National Heart Foundation of Australia assembled an expert panel to provide guidance on policy and system changes to improve the quality of care for people with chronic heart failure (CHF). The recommendations have the potential to reduce emergency presentations, hospitalisations and premature death among patients with CHF. Best-practice management of CHF involves evidence-based, multidisciplinary, patient-centred care, which leads to better health outcomes. A CHF care model is required to achieve this. Although CHF management programs exist, ensuring access for everyone remains a challenge. This is particularly so for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, those from non-metropolitan areas and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Lack of data and inadequate identification of people with CHF prevents efficient patient monitoring, limiting information to improve or optimise care. This leads to ineffectiveness in measuring outcomes and evaluating the CHF care provided. Expanding current cardiac registries to include patients with CHF and developing mechanisms to promote data linkage across care transitions are essential. As the prevalence of CHF rises, the demand for multidisciplinary workforce support will increase. Workforce planning should provide access to services outside of large cities, one of the main challenges it is currently facing. To enhance community-based management of CHF, general practitioners should be empowered to lead care. Incentive arrangements should favour provision of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and rural areas, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Ongoing research is vital to improving systems of care for people with CHF. Future research activity needs to ensure the translation of valuable knowledge and high-quality evidence into practice.

Smoking behavior among patients and staff: a snapshot from a major metropolitan hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

BACKGROUND: A cross-sectional study was conducted to provide a snapshot of smoking behavior among staff and patients at a major metropolitan hospital in Melbourne. METHODS: Patients and staff were surveyed using a questionnaire exploring demographics, nicotine dependence (Fagerstrom test), readiness to quit, and preference for smoking cessation options. RESULTS: A total of 1496 people were screened within 2 hours; 1,301 participated (1,100 staff, 199 patients). Mean age was 42 years, 68% were female. There were 113 (9%) current smokers and 326 (25%) ex-smokers. Seven percent of the staff were current smokers compared with 19% of the patients. The Fagerstrom test showed that 47% of patients who smoked were moderately nicotine dependent compared with 21% of staff. A third of the staff who smoked did not anticipate health problems related to smoking. Most patients (79%) who smoked disagreed that their current health problems were related to smoking. Although more than half of the current smokers preferred pharmacotherapy, one in two of them did not prefer behavior counseling; with consistent results among staff and patients. Multivariate analyses showed that patients were three times more likely (odds ratio 3.0, 95% confidence interval 1.9-4.7) to smoke than staff. CONCLUSION: This study reports lower prevalence of smoking among hospital staff compared with national data. It also indicates an under-appreciation of health effects of smoking, and a preference not to use conventional methods of quitting.

Impact of C-reactive protein on treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease.

PURPOSE: The impact of C-reactive protein (CRP) on the treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease is described. SUMMARY: CRP is a marker of coronary heart disease and other disease states. Its release from the liver activates endothelial dysfunction and contributes to atherothrombosis. In healthy persons, CRP was found to be an independent risk marker for cardiovascular disease when compared with low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association published a statement regarding CRP's use in clinical practice and public health. In a primary prevention study, statins were shown to reduce CRP, and patients with a low concentration of LDL cholesterol and high CRP may benefit from statin therapy. The results of a secondary prevention study confirmed that CRP reduction was not related to the lipid-lowering effects of the statins and that pravastatin reduced coronary events regardless of inflammation status designated by the CRP value. Another study demonstrated that intensive pharmacotherapy was more effective than moderate therapy in reducing CRP, but it found no difference in clinical outcomes among statin regimens once the goal CRP value was attained. In atheroma ultrasound studies, a reduced CRP level was related to reductions in atheroma volume regardless of the statin regimen used. CONCLUSION: The correct use of CRP in pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of statins has not been fully elucidated. Until more data regarding CRP and statin use are available, pharmacists must continue to focus on risk factors other than CRP, such as cholesterol levels, medical history, social history, and lifestyle characteristics, when making clinical decisions regarding statin therapy.