4.6 Article

Standardization and quality improvement of secondary prevention through cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes in Europe: The avenue towards EAPC accreditation programme: A position statement of the Secondary Prevention and Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 496-509

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1177/2047487320924912

关键词

Cardiac rehabilitation; secondary prevention; accreditation; standards

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness of contemporary cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes, there is inadequate referral to/uptake of and adherence to cardiovascular rehabilitation. Heterogeneity persists amongst different cardiovascular rehabilitation centres in Europe, but by complying with minimal and optimal standards, the standardization of cardiovascular rehabilitation process in Europe can be improved, thereby increasing the quality of cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes.
Despite the proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness of contemporary cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes, the referral to/uptake of and adherence to cardiovascular rehabilitation remains inadequate. In addition, heterogeneity persists amongst different cardiovascular rehabilitation centres in Europe, despite the available scientific documents describing the evidence-based rehabilitation format/content. This position statement was elaborated by the Secondary Prevention and Rehabilitation (SP/CR) section of EAPC. It defines the minimal and optimal cardiovascular rehabilitation standards. In addition, it describes the relevant quality indicators of cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes to date. Compliance of European cardiovascular rehabilitation centres with these standards will improve cardiovascular rehabilitation process standardization in Europe and hence increase the quality of cadiovascular rehabilitation programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据