There are substantial variations in entry criteria for heart failure (HF) clinics, leading to variations in whom providers refer for these life-saving services. This study investigated actual versus ideal HF clinic inclusion or exclusion criteria and how that related to referring providers' perspectives of ideal criteria.

Two cross-sectional surveys were administered via research electronic data capture to clinic providers and referrers (eg, cardiologists, family physicians and nurse practitioners) across Canada.

Twenty-seven criteria selected based on the literature and HF guidelines were tested. Respondents were asked to list any additional criteria. The degree of agreement was assessed (eg, Kappa).

Responses were received from providers at 48 clinics (37.5% response rate). The most common actual inclusion criteria were newly diagnosed HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class IIIB/IV and recent hospitalisation (each endorsed by >74% of respondents). Exclusion criteria included congenital aetiology, intravenous inotropes, a lack of specialists, some non-cardiac comorbidities and logistical factors (eg, rurality and technology access). There was the greatest discordance between actual and ideal criteria for the following: inpatient at the same institution (=0.14), congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension or genetic cardiomyopathies (all =0.36). One-third (n=16) of clinics had changed criteria, often for non-clinical reasons. Seventy-three referring providers completed the survey. Criteria endorsed more by referrers than clinics included low blood pressure with a high heart rate, recurrent defibrillator shocks and intravenous inotropes—criteria also consistent with guidelines.

There is considerable agreement on the main clinic entry criteria, but given some discordance, two levels of clinics may be warranted. Publicising evidence-based criteria and applying them systematically at referral sources could support improved HF patient care journeys and outcomes.

Paramedic assessment data have not been used for research on avoidable calls. Paramedic impression codes are designated by paramedics on responding to a 911/999 medical emergency after an assessment of the presenting condition. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are non-acute health conditions not needing hospital admission when properly managed. This study aimed to map the paramedic impression codes to ACSCs and mental health conditions for use in future research on avoidable 911/999 calls.

Mapping paramedic impression codes to existing definitions of ACSCs and mental health conditions.

East Midlands Region, UK and Southern Ontario, Canada.

Expert panel from the UK-Canada Emergency Calls Data analysis and GEospatial mapping (EDGE) Consortium.

Mapping was iterative first identifying the common ACSCs shared between the two countries then identifying the respective clinical impression codes for each country that mapped to those shared ACSCs as well as to mental health conditions. Experts from the UK-Canada EDGE Consortium contributed to both phases and were able to independently match the codes and then compare results. Clinical impression codes for paramedics in the UK were more extensive than those in Ontario. The mapping revealed some interesting inconsistencies between paramedic impression codes but also demonstrated that it was possible.

This is an important first step in determining the number of ASCSs and mental health conditions that paramedics attend to, and in examining the clinical pathways of these individuals across the health system. This work lays the foundation for international comparative health services research on integrated pathways in primary care and emergency medical services.

External control arms (ECAs) provide useful comparisons in clinical trials when randomised control arms are limited or not feasible. We conducted a systematic review to summarise applications of ECAs in trials of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

Systematic review with an appraisal of ECA source quality rated across five domains (data collection, study populations, outcome definitions, reliability and comprehensiveness of the dataset, and other potential limitations) as high, low or unclear quality.

Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial were searched through to 12 September 2023.

Eligible studies were single-arm or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inflammatory bowel disease, pouchitis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in which an ECA was used as the comparator.

Two authors independently screened the search results in duplicate. The characteristics of included studies, external data source(s), outcomes and statistical methods were recorded, and the quality of the ECA data source was assessed by two independent authors.

Forty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (inflammatory bowel disease: 16, pouchitis: 1, rheumatoid arthritis: 12, juvenile idiopathic arthritis: 1, ankylosing spondylitis: 5, psoriasis: 3, multiple indications: 4). The majority of these trials were single-arm (33/43) and enrolled adult patients (34/43). All included studies used a historical control rather than a contemporaneous ECA. In RCTs, ECAs were most often derived from the placebo arm of another RCT (6/10). In single-arm trials, historical case series were the most common ECA source (19/33). Most studies (31/43) did not employ a statistical approach to generate the ECA from historical data.

Standardised ECA methodology and reporting conventions are lacking for IMIDs trials. The establishment of ECA reporting guidelines may enhance the rigour and transparency of future research.