ArticleEcho research and practice2025
Contemporary review of stress echocardiography workforce within the UK: an EVAREST/BSE NSTEP study.
Article in Echo research and practice, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStress echocardiography is a key imaging modality for assessing coronary artery disease in the UK. Traditionally, stress echo services were led by consultant cardiologists, but evolving workforce models have increased the involvement of cardiac physiologists and scientists. This study, as part of the National Review of Stress Echocardiography Practice (BSE N-STEP), aimed to evaluate current stress echo workforce structures and test outcomes across a group of UK hospitals to inform future workforce planning.
resultsData were analysed from 8506 stress echocardiograms, conducted between September 2020 and June 2023 across 34 UK hospitals. Based on the supervising workforce, stress echocardiograms were allocated into either a doctor-led (DL) or cardiac physiologist/scientist and nurse-led (CNL) model. 56.9% of stress echocardiograms were DL, while 42.7% were conducted under a CNL model. Physiologists/scientists were the most frequently involved staff (81.9%). The primary indication for stress echocardiography was ischaemia evaluation (89.4%). Dobutamine stress echocardiography was more common in DL services (63.0 vs. 56.3%, p < 0.001), while CNL services performed more exercise stress echocardiography (42.8 vs. 36.4%, p < 0.001). Test positivity rates were similar between DL and CNL models (17.1 vs. 17.7%, p = ns), though the CNL group had a lower complication rate (2.2 vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001). Reporting of stress echocardiograms remained consultant-led in 82% of cases, but physiologist/scientist-led reporting showed an increase over time. Training was primarily provided to registrars/fellows (60.2%), with physiologist/scientist trainees accounting for 32.4%.
conclusionsThis study provides a contemporary overview of stress echocardiography workforce models in the UK, highlighting the increasing role of cardiac physiologists and scientists in supervising and reporting stress echocardiography. Despite these shifts, consultant cardiologists remain central to stress echo reporting. The findings support the integration of multidisciplinary workforce models to enhance service efficiency. These insights will aid in future workforce planning and training strategies to optimise stress echocardiography service provision across the NHS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.