Search

Background: The aim of this study was to optimize a Question Prompt List which is designed to improve communication about the heart failure trajectory among patients, family members, and health care professionals. Methods: Data were collected in a two-round Delphi survey and a cross-sectional survey, including patients with heart failure, their family members, and health care professionals working in heart failure care in Sweden and the Netherlands. Acceptability for and demand of the Question Prompt List were assessed. Results: A total of 96 patients, 63 family members and 26 health care professionals participated in the study. Regarding acceptability, most of the original questions were found to be relevant by the participants for inclusion in the Question Prompt List but some cultural differences exist, which resulted in two versions of the list: a Swedish version including 33 questions and a Dutch version including 38 questions. Concerning demand, participants reported that they were interested in discussing the questions in the revised Question Prompt List with a physician or a nurse. Few patients and family members reported that they were worried by the questions in the Question Prompt List and hence did not want to discuss the questions. Conclusions: This Question Prompt List has successfully been adapted into a Swedish version and a Dutch version and includes questions about the HF trajectory which patients, their families, and health care professionals perceived to be relevant for discussion in clinical practice. Overall, patients and family members were not worried about the content in the Question Prompt List and if used in accordance with patients’ and family members’ preferences, the Question Prompt List can help to improve communication about the heart failure trajectory.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of 2 nurse-directed programmes of different intensity for the counselling and follow-up of patients hospitalised for heart failure, compared with standard care by a cardiologist. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised clinical trial (www.trialregister.nl: NCT 98675639). METHOD: A total of 1023 patients were randomized after hospitalisation for heart failure to 1 of 3 treatment strategies: standard care provided by a cardiologist, follow-up care from a cardiologist with basic counselling and support by a nurse specialising in heart failure, or follow-up care from a cardiologist with intensive counselling and support by a nurse specialising in heart failure. Primary end points were the time to rehospitalisation due to heart failure or death and the number of days lost to rehospitalisation or death during the 18-month study period. Data were analysed on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 71 years, 38% were women, 50% had mild heart failure and 50% had severe heart failure. During the study, 411 patients (40%) were rehospitalised due to heart failure or died from any cause: 42% in the control group, and 41% and 38% in the basic and intensive support groups, respectively (differences not significant). The time to rehospitalisation or death was similar in the 3 groups: hazard ratios for the basic and intensive support groups versus the control group were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.76-1.21; p = 0.73) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.73-1.17; p = 0.53), respectively. The number of days lost to rehospitalisation or death was 39,960 in the control group; this number was 15% less in the intervention groups, but the difference was not significant. However, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the intervention groups. In all 3 groups, more visits occurred than planned, which may have had a considerable effect on care, notably in the control group. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicated that the provision of additional counselling and sup