Search

Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the relative merits of various heart failure models of care with regard to a variety of outcomes. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: Five databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase and Science Direct were searched from the inception date of databases to August 20, 2022. Review Methods: This review used the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of Bias' tool to assess quality. Only randomised controlled trails were included in this review that assessed all care models in the management of adults with heart failure. A categorical summary of the pattern of the papers was found, followed by extraction of outcome indicators. Results: Twenty articles (19 studies) were included. Seven examined nurse‐led care, two examined multidisciplinary specialist care, nine (10 articles) examined patient self‐management, and one examined nurse and physiotherapist co‐led care. Regarding outcomes, this review examined how well the four models performed with regard to quality of life, health services use, HF self‐care, and anxiety and depression for heart failure patients. The model of patient self‐management showed more beneficial results than nurse‐led care, multidisciplinary specialist care, and nurse and physiotherapist co‐led care in reducing hospital days, improving symptoms, promoting self‐care behaviours of HF patients, enhancing the quality of life, and strengthening self‐care ability. Conclusions: This systematic review synthesises the different care models and their relative effectiveness. Four different models of care were summarised. Of these models, the self‐management model demonstrated better outcomes. Impact: The self‐management model is more effective in increasing self‐management behaviours and self‐management abilities, lowering the risk of hospitalisation and death, improving quality of life, and relieving anxiety and depression than other models. No Patient or Public Contribution: There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and implementation strategies of telecare consultations in post-stroke nurse-led clinics. Background: Telecare consultations could be an alternative to conventional in-person consultations and improve continuity of care for stroke survivors following their discharge from hospital. Previous studies utilizing telecare consultations only focused on testing their clinical effectiveness on stroke survivors; the appropriateness and feasibility of adopting this new delivery modality in a real-world setting were not examined. Design: A Type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation design will be adopted. Methods: Eligible stroke survivor participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention group (telecare consultation) or control group (usual in-person clinic consultation). Both groups will receive the same nursing intervention but delivered through different channels. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework will be used to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and implementation outcomes. The primary outcome is the non-inferiority of the degree of disability between the two groups at 3 months into the intervention and at 3 months post-intervention. The paper complies with the SPIRIT guidelines for study protocols adapted for designing and reporting parallel group randomized trials. Conclusion: The findings of this study will provide key insights into the processes for implementing and adopting telecare consultations into long-term services for poststroke patients. Impact: This study contributes to the translation of telecare consultations for stroke survivors into real-life settings. If effective, this program may provide guidance for expanding telecare consultations to other post-stroke nurse-led clinics or to patients with other chronic diseases. Trial Registration: This study has been registered at clini caltr ials. gov (identifier: NCT05183672). Registered on 10 January 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]