ArticleCJEM2025
Barriers and facilitators to use of the HEARTRISK6 Scale for acute heart failure presentations in the emergency department: a qualitative study.
Article in CJEM, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAcute heart failure is the second most common reason for return visits to the emergency department (ED) in Canada. Half of all acute heart failure patients presenting to the ED can be discharged, suggesting admission is not always necessary. The HEARTRISK6 Scale was recently developed from prospectively collected data of 2,246 acute heart failure patients from 10 Canadian EDs. This tool comprises six routine ED criteria and aids disposition decisions by estimating the risk of poor outcomes. Currently, it is not known what ED clinicians think of the tool. This study aimed to determine the factors impacting emergency physician use of the HEARTRISK6 Scale, and to identify the relevant opportunities to increase uptake of the tool.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with ED attending and resident physicians at The Ottawa Hospital and nearby community sites. An interview guide based on the theoretical domains framework (TDF) was used to capture factors within the 14 domains that may influence the use of HEARTRISK6. Interview transcripts were coded using direct content analysis, and belief statements were generated to capture similar responses. Relevant and non-relevant domains were identified based on their frequencies, presence of conflicting ideas, and perceived influence.
resultsSixteen interviews (thirteen attendings, three residents) were conducted with ED physicians. Eleven of the fourteen TDF domains were identified as relevant. Participants described key facilitators to be teaching about the tool, positive colleague views, increased objectivity of disposition decision, ease of access, and feeling it benefited their work. Desire for more evidence, competing demands, and need for consultant buy-in were noted as important barriers.
conclusionThis study identified key barriers and facilitators to use of HEARTRISK6 Scale for acute heart failure patients. These factors provide targets for developing interventions aimed at encouraging routine use of HEARTRISK6 among ED physicians in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40830738What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.