ArticleEcho research and practice2025
The implementation of a Cardiac Scientist Led Heart Failure diagnosis clinic for non-urgent suspected heart failure referrals.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNICE guidelines suggest that patients with suspected heart failure (HF) and an NT-proBNP between 400-2,000ng/l have specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks. Typically, pathways require significant coordination of a multidisciplinary team, with upfront input from senior clinicians. In line with NHS workforce plans to develop non-medical roles, a Cardiac scientist led Heart Failure assessment clinic for non-urgent suspected HF referrals was trialled. A British Society of Echocardiography accredited physiologist with health assessment and clinical examination qualifications performed a transthoracic echocardiogram, 12 lead electrocardiogram and clinical assessment within one appointment slot. Preliminary outcome recommendations made by the physiologist were reviewed at a later point by a supervising HF consultant. The pilot aimed to ensure timely clinical assessment at the point of echocardiography and reduce delays in patient diagnosis. In a retrospective service evaluation, the clinic decision and time from scan to outcome correspondence was compared between the cardiac clinical scientist led pathway (n = 100) and the medical led pathway (n = 100).
resultsBoth patient groups were found to have similar outcomes. In the clinical scientist led pathway 65% were discharged, 6% were found to have HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 20% were found to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), 7% were referred into general cardiology, 1% were referred to the cardio-thoracic surgical team and 1% were admitted. In the medical led pathway, 61%, were discharged, 7% were found to have HFrEF, 23% were found to have HFpEF, 6% were referred into a general cardiology, 3% were referred to the cardio-thoracic surgical team and 0% were admitted. A significant reduction (30.1 days vs. 10.6 days) in time was observed from echocardiogram to outcome correspondence for patient. (p < 0.01).
conclusionThe scientist led pathway demonstrated improved time from diagnostic testing to outcome correspondence, ensuring timely enrolment on the relevant treatment pathway. Findings suggest that the pathway is feasible and effective, highlighting the need to utilise expertise of clinical scientists in the HF paradigm. Future work should explore long-term feasibility and sustainability of these clinics, further expansion and the feasibility of this service in a district general hospital or community diagnostic centres.
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.