What services are currently provided to people with Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction in the UK and what are their components? A systematic scoping review.

Faye Forsyth, Christi Deaton, Paul R Kalra, Mark Green, Mary E Harrison, Sara Tavares, Andreas Dirksen, Isla Kuhn, Barbara Farquharson, Rosalynn C Austin
{"title":"What services are currently provided to people with Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction in the UK and what are their components? A systematic scoping review.","authors":"Faye Forsyth, Christi Deaton, Paul R Kalra, Mark Green, Mary E Harrison, Sara Tavares, Andreas Dirksen, Isla Kuhn, Barbara Farquharson, Rosalynn C Austin","doi":"10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To review the clinical services currently provided to people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) living in the United Kingdom (UK). To examine the format of clinical care and to assess these against UK guideline recommendations provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).</p><p><strong>Methods & results: </strong>A systematic scoping review was performed. We synthesised articles narratively according to the Systematic Review without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines, drawing on other established recommendations for narrative methods. We critically appraised articles using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools. Following screening (n=11,495) and full-text review (n=68), we included 25 unique reports from databases and nine operations documents received following a public appeal. Overall reporting within both published articles and operations documents was sub-optimal, limiting our description of service provision. From the data available, it appeared that most services were NICE guideline compliant for overall heart failure management, however multiple services augmented clinical teams with additional specialists to assist in the management of people with HFpEF. Thematic analysis suggested variability in HFpEF services, uncertainty over the optimal clinic format and management strategies, which was complicated by complexity in patients. Cumulatively, publications suggested there is a need for service re-design.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HFpEF care in the UK appears variable and the format of optimal services to improve outcomes is not yet clear. Patient complexity makes management challenging. Although some clinical services have made efforts to adapt to HFpEF patients' needs, there remain significant gaps in service provision and care. Findings underscore a pressing need for service re-design.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>This scoping review protocol was published on the public Open Science Framework platform (no registration reference provided) and can be accessed at: https://osf.io/5gufq/.</p>","PeriodicalId":93997,"journal":{"name":"European journal of cardiovascular nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of cardiovascular nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To review the clinical services currently provided to people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) living in the United Kingdom (UK). To examine the format of clinical care and to assess these against UK guideline recommendations provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Methods & results: A systematic scoping review was performed. We synthesised articles narratively according to the Systematic Review without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines, drawing on other established recommendations for narrative methods. We critically appraised articles using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools. Following screening (n=11,495) and full-text review (n=68), we included 25 unique reports from databases and nine operations documents received following a public appeal. Overall reporting within both published articles and operations documents was sub-optimal, limiting our description of service provision. From the data available, it appeared that most services were NICE guideline compliant for overall heart failure management, however multiple services augmented clinical teams with additional specialists to assist in the management of people with HFpEF. Thematic analysis suggested variability in HFpEF services, uncertainty over the optimal clinic format and management strategies, which was complicated by complexity in patients. Cumulatively, publications suggested there is a need for service re-design.

Conclusion: HFpEF care in the UK appears variable and the format of optimal services to improve outcomes is not yet clear. Patient complexity makes management challenging. Although some clinical services have made efforts to adapt to HFpEF patients' needs, there remain significant gaps in service provision and care. Findings underscore a pressing need for service re-design.

Registration: This scoping review protocol was published on the public Open Science Framework platform (no registration reference provided) and can be accessed at: https://osf.io/5gufq/.

在英国,目前为保留射血分数的心力衰竭患者提供了哪些服务?这些服务的组成部分是什么?系统的范围审查。
目的:回顾目前在英国为保留射血分数(HFpEF)心力衰竭患者提供的临床服务。检查临床护理的格式,并根据英国国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE)提供的指南建议进行评估。方法与结果:进行了系统的范围审查。我们根据无meta分析的系统评价(SWiM)指南对文章进行叙事合成,并借鉴了其他已建立的叙事方法建议。我们使用批判性评估技能计划工具对文章进行批判性评估。经过筛选(n=11,495)和全文审查(n=68),我们纳入了来自数据库的25份独特报告和公众呼吁后收到的9份操作文件。发表的文章和操作文档中的总体报告都不是最佳的,限制了我们对服务提供的描述。从现有的数据来看,似乎大多数服务都符合NICE指南对整体心力衰竭管理的要求,然而,许多服务增加了临床团队和额外的专家来协助管理HFpEF患者。专题分析表明,HFpEF服务的可变性,最佳临床形式和管理策略的不确定性,由于患者的复杂性而复杂化。累积起来,出版物建议需要重新设计服务。结论:HFpEF治疗在英国出现了变化,改善结果的最佳服务形式尚不清楚。患者的复杂性使管理具有挑战性。虽然一些临床服务机构已经努力适应HFpEF患者的需求,但在服务提供和护理方面仍存在重大差距。研究结果强调了服务重新设计的迫切需要。注册:本范围审查协议发布在公共开放科学框架平台上(未提供注册参考),可通过https://osf.io/5gufq/访问。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信