Raymond M. Yau MD , Robyn Mitchell ACNP , Aasim Afzal MD , Timothy J. George MD , Syed Siddiqullah MD , Aditya S. Bharadwaj MBBS , Alexander G. Truesdell MD , Carolyn Rosner MSN, NP-C, MBA , Mir B. Basir DO , Ruth Fisher MBA , Allison Dupont MD , Carlos Leon Alviar MD , Haval Chweich MD , Navin K. Kapur MD , Rajan A.G. Patel MD , Scott Silvestry MD , Sandeep M. Patel MD , Jacob Abraham MD
{"title":"Blueprint for Building and Sustaining a Cardiogenic Shock Program: Qualitative Survey of 12 US Programs","authors":"Raymond M. Yau MD , Robyn Mitchell ACNP , Aasim Afzal MD , Timothy J. George MD , Syed Siddiqullah MD , Aditya S. Bharadwaj MBBS , Alexander G. Truesdell MD , Carolyn Rosner MSN, NP-C, MBA , Mir B. Basir DO , Ruth Fisher MBA , Allison Dupont MD , Carlos Leon Alviar MD , Haval Chweich MD , Navin K. Kapur MD , Rajan A.G. Patel MD , Scott Silvestry MD , Sandeep M. Patel MD , Jacob Abraham MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) programs have been associated with improved outcomes, yet practical guidance for developing a CS program is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A survey on CS program development and operational best practices was administered to 12 institutions in diverse sociogeographic regions and practice settings. Common steps in program development were identified.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Key steps for program development were identified: measuring baseline outcomes; identifying subspecialty champions; gaining leadership and team buy-in; developing institution-specific CS protocols; educating staff and referring providers; consulting with external experts; and developing quality assessment and process improvement.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>An assessment of 12 US CS programs highlights a blueprint for establishing and maintaining a successful, multidisciplinary shock program.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73990,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","volume":"3 11","pages":"Article 102288"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772930324017320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) programs have been associated with improved outcomes, yet practical guidance for developing a CS program is lacking.
Methods
A survey on CS program development and operational best practices was administered to 12 institutions in diverse sociogeographic regions and practice settings. Common steps in program development were identified.
Results
Key steps for program development were identified: measuring baseline outcomes; identifying subspecialty champions; gaining leadership and team buy-in; developing institution-specific CS protocols; educating staff and referring providers; consulting with external experts; and developing quality assessment and process improvement.
Conclusions
An assessment of 12 US CS programs highlights a blueprint for establishing and maintaining a successful, multidisciplinary shock program.