No abstract

Background: Heart failure represents a life-threatening progressive condition. Early diagnosis and adherence to clinical guidelines are associated with improved outcomes for patients with heart failure. However, adherence to clinical guidelines remains limited in Kosovo. Objective: To assess the clinical decision-making related to heart failure diagnosis by evaluating clinicians’ preferences for clinical attributes. Method: Conjoint analysis with 33 clinical scenarios with physicians employed in public hospitals in Kosovo. Setting: Two public hospitals in Kosovo that benefited from quality improvement intervention. Participants: 14 physicians (internists and cardiologists) in two hospitals in Kosovo. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the overall effect of clinical attributes on the decision for heart failure diagnosis. Results: When considering clinical signs, the likelihood of a heart failure diagnosis increased for ages between 60 to 69 years old (RRR, 1.88; CI 95%, 1.05–3.34) and a stable heart rate (RRR, 1.93; CI 95%, 1.05–3.55) and decreased for the presence of edema (RRR, 0.23; CI 95%, 0.15–0.36), orthopnea (RRR, 0.31; CI 95%, 0.20–0.48), and unusual fatigue (RRR, 0.61; CI 95%, 0.39–0.94). When considering clinical examination findings, the likelihood for heart failure diagnosis decreased for high jugular venous pressure (RRR, 0.49; CI 95%, 0.32–0.76), pleural effusion (RRR, 0.35; CI 95%, 0.23–0.54), hearing third heart sound, (RRR, 0.50; CI 95%, 0.33–0.77), heart murmur (RRR, 0.57; CI 95%, 0.37–0.88), troponin levels (RRR, 0.59; CI 95%, 0.38–0.91), and NTproBNP levels (RRR, 0.36; CI 95%, 0.24–0.56). Conclusions: We often found odd and wide variations of clinical signs and examination results influencing the decision to diagnose a person with heart failure. It will be important to explore and understand these results better. The study findings are important for existing quality improvement support efforts and contribute to the standardization of clinical decision-making in the public hospitals in the country. This experience and this study can provide valuable impetus for further examination of these efforts and informing policy and development efforts in the standardization of care in the country.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the odds of caesarean section in all births in teaching hospitals as compared with non-teaching hospitals.SettingOver 3600 teaching and non-teaching hospitals in 22 countries. We searched CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, sciELO, Scopus and Web of Science from the beginning of records until May 2020.ParticipantsWomen at birth. Over 18.5 million births.InterventionCaesarean section.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures are the adjusted OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. The secondary outcome is the crude OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons.ResultsIn adjusted analyses, we found that university hospitals have lower odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and other teaching hospitals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89), and no significant difference with unspecified teaching status hospitals (OR=0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, τ2=0.009). Other teaching hospitals had higher odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Comparison between unspecified teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65, τ2=1.007) and unspecified hospitals (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), τ2<0.001) showed no significant difference. While the main analysis in larger sized groups of analysed studies reveals no effect between hospitals, subgroup analyses show that teaching hospitals carry out fewer caesarean sections in several countries, for several study populations and population characteristics.ConclusionsWith smaller sample of participants and studies, in clearly defined hospitals categories under comparison, we see that university hospitals have lower odds for caesarean. With larger sample size and number of studies, as well as less clearly defined categories of hospitals, we see no significant difference in the likelihood of caesarean sections between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, even in groups with no significant effect, teaching hospitals have a lower or higher likelihood of caesarean sections in several analysed subgroups. Therefore, we recommend a more precise examination of forces sustaining these trends.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020158437.