IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v22y2013i11-12p1629-1638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Complexity of management and health outcomes in a prospective cohort study of 573 heart failure patients in Australia: does more equal less?

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Driscoll
  • Andrew Tonkin
  • Andrew Stewart
  • Linda Worrall‐Carter
  • David R Thompson
  • Barbara Riegel
  • David L Hare
  • Patricia M Davidson
  • Christine Mulvany
  • Simon Stewart

Abstract

Aims and objectives To compare the efficacy of chronic heart failure management programmes (CHF‐MPs) according to a scoring algorithm used to quantify the level of applied interventions–the Heart Failure Intervention Score (HF‐IS). Background The overall efficacy of heart failure programmes has been proven in several meta‐analyses. However, the debate continues as to which components are essential in a heart failure programme to improve patient outcomes. Design Prospective cohort study of patients participating in heart failure programmes. Method Forty‐eight of 62 (77%) programmes in Australia participating in a national register of CHF‐MPs were evaluated using the HF‐IS: derived from a summed and weighted score of each intervention applied by the CHF‐MP (27 interventions overall). The CHF‐MPs were prospectively categorised as relatively low (HF‐IS

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Driscoll & Andrew Tonkin & Andrew Stewart & Linda Worrall‐Carter & David R Thompson & Barbara Riegel & David L Hare & Patricia M Davidson & Christine Mulvany & Simon Stewart, 2013. "Complexity of management and health outcomes in a prospective cohort study of 573 heart failure patients in Australia: does more equal less?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(11-12), pages 1629-1638, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:11-12:p:1629-1638
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12073
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12073?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:11-12:p:1629-1638. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.