MEDICAL INTERVENTION

Medical Intervention regarding Congestive Heart Failure and Team Management of Patients With Heart Failure

Table of contents

Introduction1

What were the targeted population and the disease state?1

Why was this important to study?2

What was the intervention?2

How were the outcomes measured?3

Were tools used for assessment?4

Baseline Comparison4

Difference in Difference4

Adjusted Regression Models4

How were they selected?5

Baseline Comparison5

Difference in Difference5

What was learned?5

Baseline Comparison6

Difference in Difference6

Multivariable Regression7

What are some limitations of the studies?7

Quality improvement initiative using these studies8

What are the desired outcomes?9

Conclusion10

References11

Medical Intervention regarding Congestive Heart Failure

Introduction

The paper considers two articles which are the Medical Intervention regarding Congestive Heart Failure and the Team Management of Patients With Heart Failure. The articles are evaluated together for the effect of interventions on the target population. Various aspects of the intervention are under consideration to provide relevant findings that may help future researches. The studies conducted to reduce the risk, utilizing a one year pre-intervention and a one year intervention with a period of follow ups. The study confirmed that potential improvements in behavior can be noted after the risk stratified intervention, while improvement in survival is possible by a high intensity, high cost intervention. According to the article reviewed, the follow-up in the outpatient setting and discharge planning process is Critical to the success of heart failure management.

What were the targeted population and the disease state?

The disease that was considered in the articles reviewed is congestive heart failure concerning participants between the age of forty five and ninety five, of which the Hispanic population was consisting of 22 percent and the African America population consisted of 7 percent. The article considered a study of 458 participants, utilizing a one year pre-intervention and a one year intervention with a period of follow ups, while the second study does not include a specific population.

Why was this important to study?

The importance of both the studies can be seen as it identifies the factors that are important in the survival of Heart participants. As the study confirmed that potential improvements in behavior can be noted after the risk stratified intervention, while improvement in survival is possible by a high intensity, high cost intervention (Copeland, 2010).

What was the intervention?

Once the patient enrolls in any of the two studies, the team started making a patient specific self-management plan, which includes the use of the “Primary care physician's therapeutic plan, based on the SRSA (“Standardized Risk Stratification Algorithm”) to intensify the plan. The second study emphasized on education, while the first focuses on the patient's admission history, self-report, and medical report were used to determine the risk stratification. The Boolean logic was used by the copyrighted algorithm, sorting the participants into three categories based on the risk associated. I used the telephonic interactions to determine the risk of the patient based on the frequency, making the low risk patient who made two calls, the medium risk patient making seven calls, and the high risk patient making 16 calls (Rollnick, 1991).

The disease management nurses, during the telephonic interactions exercised intervention by coaching and educating the participating ...