Key result
This editorial reflects on the transition of leadership for the journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes after 8 years.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
T he end of a journey brings both the sweetness of its mem- ories and the tinge of sadness that comes with the conclusion of an adventure.This sense describes my feelings as we transition Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (CQO) from its founding team to a new group of editors who are prepared to catapult the journal to new levels of success.It is a sense accompanied by the knowledge of having had the great privilege to serve the community of people devoted to improving cardiovascular and stroke health and health careand that the enterprise is in great hands for the future.In September 2008, CQO published its first issue.In its conception, CQO was distinctive in not focusing on a condition or procedure, but on research that was related to improving the prevention, care, and outcomes of people with, or at risk for, cardiovascular disease and stroke.CQO was built to focus on safety, effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and timely and equitable health and health care.The emphasis was on results achieved, lives improved, and value promoted.Over the subsequent 8 years, our fledgling ideas developed into an established journal with an international presence.Now, CQO is undergoing a planned transition in leadership with Brahmajee Nallamothu as Editor in Chief and P. Michael Ho as Deputy Editor.On behalf of the founding group, I extend my thanks to all who made this journey worthwhile and promoted CQO's success.In my last Editor's Perspective, I would like to provide an account of the state of the journal, highlight some of
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harlan M. Krumholz (2016) reported an editorial. This editorial reflects on the transition of leadership for the journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes after 8 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: