ReviewEcho research and practice2025
Clinical scientist led clinic in adult congenital heart disease - how to do it?
Review 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing demand for adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) services requires innovative solutions to reduce waiting times and optimise patient care. This paper presents the implementation and development of an ACHD Scientist-led clinic at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, providing an alternative, cost-effective, and efficient service model. A comprehensive service audit identified challenges related to patient backlogs, clinic efficiency, and administrative coordination. Subsequent restructuring efforts, including an expanded appointment system, improved referral pathways, and enhanced clinical governance, led to a significant reduction in overdue appointments from 15% to 2%, despite an overall increase in patient numbers. Comparative cost analysis demonstrated that the Clinical Scientist-led model is more cost-effective than the traditional models. Additionally, patient satisfaction surveys and Consultant evaluations confirmed this model's high quality and safety. These findings highlight the potential for broader adoption of Clinical Scientist-led clinics within the ACHD networks to improve accessibility, efficiency, and sustainability of care.
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.