ArticleOpen heart2026
Maintaining quality out-of-hours in an acute cardiology service in a UK primary PCI centre.
Article in Open heart, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany district general hospitals (DGHs) in the UK do not have resident on-call cardiology registrars overnight; in these situations, it is becoming more common for cardiac outreach practitioners (COPs) to provide specialist input for patients presenting with suspected cardiac events. The aim of this study is to evaluate the exact diagnostic concordance between the initial working diagnoses made independently by COPs and subsequent final discharge diagnoses in patients assessed out of hours and to assess the accuracy of identifying acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
methodsA retrospective, single-centre service evaluation was conducted at a UK DGH between January and June 2025. Initial COP diagnoses were compared with final discharge diagnoses, with exact diagnostic concordance reported as percentage agreement. Diagnostic performance for identifying ACS was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, overall accuracy and Cohen's kappa (κ).
resultsA total of 779 cases were screened, with 233 patients meeting inclusion criteria following staged exclusions. The overall exact diagnostic concordance was 92.7% (216/233). The 216 exact concordant cases comprised 125 concordant cardiac diagnoses and 91 concordant non-cardiac diagnoses. 17 cases had discordant diagnoses, but none were associated with delayed escalation, investigation or management. COP sensitivity for identifying ACS was 96.0%, specificity was 92.4%, positive predictive value was 85.9%, negative predictive value was 98.0% and overall classification accuracy was 93.6%. Cohen's κ was 0.858 (95% CI 0.789 to 0.927), indicating almost-perfect agreement.
conclusionCOPs demonstrated a high level of exact diagnostic concordance when compared with discharge diagnosis made by consultant cardiologist. This new evidence suggests that COP-led assessments are reliable when working within a clinical pathway.
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.