Clinical Practice Guideline Adherence Before and After Implementation of the HEARTFELT (HEART Failure Effectiveness & Leadership Team) Intervention

Abstract

HEART Failure Effectiveness & Leadership Team (HEARTFELT) is a multifaceted intervention designed to improve adherence with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association practice guidelines for heart failure (HF). The purpose of this study was to assess differences in clinician adherence with clinical practice guidelines before and after implementation of HEARTFELT. A quasi-experimental, untreated control group design with separate pretest/posttest samples was employed at a community hospital in Connecticut. The untreated historical control group included patients aged 65 years or older with HF and a nonequivalent comparison group of patients with stroke. The posttest samples included patients with the diagnosis of HF and stroke admitted after implementation of the HEARTFELT intervention. The HEARTFELT intervention included automated pathway in electronic medical record (order sets, interdisciplinary plan of care, self-management plan), access to evidence for clinicians and patients, HF self-management education tools, and ongoing discipline-specific feedback regarding adherence. Data were analyzed using parametric and nonparametric methods. The HEARTFELT intervention significantly improved clinician adherence with addressing all self-management categories in the electronic medical record (P = .000) and adherence with self-management education given to the patient in writing at discharge (P = .000). There were no significant differences in adherence with medical interventions (P = .39). While guideline adherence is associated with less practice variation and improved processes, methods of integration into practice in community hospital settings have been largely unexplored. The multifaceted HEARTFELT intervention is promising for its potential to integrate evidence at the point of care, to reduce unwarranted variation in practice, and ultimately to improve the outcomes of individuals with HF.

Medical practice variations: what the literature tells us (or does not) about what are warranted and unwarranted variations

“…The remaining 18 articles do not offer a framework or provide a reference for the use of the term 'unwarranted variation'. Only six of these articles [59][60][61][62][63][64] report on studies to identify medical practice variations, whereas the other 12 were editorials, commentaries, review papers, or research studies examining health care without specific attention to identifying practice variations [44,[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]. As these 32 articles do not offer criteria on what is or is not unwarranted variation, they will not be discussed further in this review.…”

Creating Infrastructure Supportive of Evidence‐Based Nursing Practice: Leadership Strategies

“…In a recent report by the Institute of Medicine, recommendations include the need for evidence‐based practice to enable safe care (Committee on the Work Environment of Nurses and Patient Safety, Institute of Medicine of The National Academies 2004). Research continues to emerge that supports that the processes and outcomes of nursing care are better when informed by strong evidence (Berenholtz et al 2004; Dykes et al 2005; Herr et al 2004; Mehta et al 2002; Ribby 2006). Third, there is a hierarchy of evidence.…”

Why it Remains Difficult for Remote Cardiologist to Obtain the Locus of Control for Ambulatory Health Care Conditions Such as Congestive Heart Failure? A Tug of War between General Practice, Administrators and Implementable Research Findings

“…Asch et al however using this design was able to demonstrate the benefits of a collaborative organizational care intervention in CHF [12]. Other small but limited examples for CHF have also been published [12][13][14][15].…”

“…For cardiovascular disease as a whole, some large studies have been reported, mostly positive [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23], although longer term translation of findings into actual clinical care within those systems is unknown.…”