A mixed-methods landscape assessment of supportive care for heart failure

<b>Aim: </b>Understanding factors that shape leading health systems’ (LHS) perspectives around heart failure (HF) treatment. <b>Patients &amp; methods: </b>First of its kind study using a cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed method design (from executives and frontline healthcare providers) with quantitative survey (n <b>= </b>35) and qualitative interview (n <b>= </b>12) data from 47 participants (41 different LHS). <b>Results: </b>97% of LHS had dedicated HF programs, but variations in maturity highlights opportunities for care standardization. Treatment innovations continue, though practitioners may struggle to keep pace amid provider<b>/</b>patient barriers. HF programs strive to co-locate supportive care services to optimize treatment, but access can prove challenging. <b>Conclusion: </b>Opportunities exist, with external partner support, for LHS to become more comprehensive HF care providers, increasing standardization of care across LHS and improved HF treatment.<b>Plain language summary:</b><b> </b><b>What is this summary about?: </b>We interviewed frontline healthcare workers (such as doctors and nurses) as well as executives at large US health systems to understand how they treat people with heart failure. <b>What were the results?: </b>We learned that healthcare workers as well as executives would like to provide many different services to help people with heart failure. However, many health systems do not have all of these services available and can only provide a few basic services. We also learned healthcare workers sometimes struggle to keep up to date with new scientific discoveries and heart failure treatments. <b>What do the results mean?: </b>With support from external healthcare partners, health systems can improve their ability to treat people with heart failure.