Care models for patients with heart failure at home: A systematic review

AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the relative merits of various heart failure models of care with regard to a variety of outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Five databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase and Science Direct were searched from the inception date of databases to August 20, 2022. REVIEW METHODS: This review used the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of Bias' tool to assess quality. Only randomised controlled trails were included in this review that assessed all care models in the management of adults with heart failure. A categorical summary of the pattern of the papers was found, followed by extraction of outcome indicators. RESULTS: Twenty articles (19 studies) were included. Seven examined nurse-led care, two examined multidisciplinary specialist care, nine (10 articles) examined patient self-management, and one examined nurse and physiotherapist co-led care. Regarding outcomes, this review examined how well the four models performed with regard to quality of life, health services use, HF self-care, and anxiety and depression for heart failure patients. The model of patient self-management showed more beneficial results than nurse-led care, multidisciplinary specialist care, and nurse and physiotherapist co-led care in reducing hospital days, improving symptoms, promoting self-care behaviours of HF patients, enhancing the quality of life, and strengthening self-care ability. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review synthesises the different care models and their relative effectiveness. Four different models of care were summarised. Of these models, the self-management model demonstrated better outcomes. IMPACT: The self-management model is more effective in increasing self-management behaviours and self-management abilities, lowering the risk of hospitalisation and death, improving quality of life, and relieving anxiety and depression than other models. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review.