Importance of risk factor management in diabetic patients and reduction in Stage B heart failure

BACKGROUND: A number of studies have demonstrated the presence of a diabetic cardiomyopathy, increasing the risk of heart failure development in this population. Improvements in present-day risk factor control may have modified the risk of diabetes-associated cardiomyopathy.

AIM: We sought to determine the contemporary impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on the prevalence of cardiomyopathy in at-risk patients with and without adjustment for risk factor control.

DESIGN: A cross-sectional study in a population at risk for heart failure.

METHODS: Those with diabetes were compared to those with other cardiovascular risk factors, unmatched, matched for age and gender and then matched for age, gender, body mass index, systolic blood pressure and low density lipoprotein cholesterol.

RESULTS: In total, 1399 patients enrolled in the St Vincent's Screening to Prevent Heart Failure (STOP-HF) cohort were included. About 543 participants had an established history of DM. In the whole sample, Stage B heart failure (asymptomatic cardiomyopathy) was not found more frequently among the diabetic cohort compared to those without diabetes [113 (20.8%) vs. 154 (18.0%), P = 0.22], even when matched for age and gender. When controlling for these risk factors and risk factor control Stage B was found to be more prevalent in those with diabetes [88 (22.2%)] compared to those without diabetes [65 (16.4%), P = 0.048].

CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with established risk factors for Stage B heart failure superior risk factor management among the diabetic population appears to dilute the independent diabetic insult to left ventricular structure and function, underlining the importance and benefit of effective risk factor control in this population on cardiovascular outcomes.

Responsibility and Well-Being: Resource Integration Under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift of functions and risks from providers and producers to consumers, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). As responsibilization is often considered synonymous with consumer agency and well-being, the authors take a transformative service research perspective and draw on resource integration literature to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. The authors focus on expert services, for which responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, they develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider, and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration, and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation, and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. The findings have important implications for health care providers, public and institutional policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Responsibility and Well-being: Resource Integration under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift in functions and risks from providers and producers to the consumer, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). Responsibilization is often presented as synonymous with consumer agency and well-being. We take a transformative service research perspective and utilize the resource integration framework to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. We focus on expert services, where responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, we develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. Our findings have important implications for health care providers, public policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

The role of Lean at the interface with between operations management and applied services within a large aerospace organisation: a boundary spanning perspective

Increased complexity in large design and manufacturing organisations requires improvements at the operations management (OM)–applied service (AS) interface areas to improve project effectiveness. The aim of this paper is explore the role of Lean in improving the longitudinal efficiency of the OM–AS interface within a large aerospace organisation using Lean principles and boundary spanning theory. The methodology was an exploratory longitudinal case approach including exploratory interviews (n = 21), focus groups (n = 2), facilitated action-research workshops (n = 2) and two trials or experiments using longitudinal data involving both OM and AS personnel working at the interface. The findings draw upon Lean principles and boundary spanning theory to guide and interpret the findings. It was found that misinterpretation, and forced implementation, of OM-based Lean terminology and practice in the OM–AS interface space led to delays and misplaced resources. Rather both OM and AS staff were challenged to develop a cross boundary understanding of Lean-based boundary (knowledge) objects in interpreting OM requests. The longitudinal findings from the experiments showed that the development of Lean Performance measurements and lean Value Stream constructs was more successful when these Lean constructs were treated as boundary (knowledge) objects requiring transformation over time to orchestrate improved effectiveness and in leading to consistent terminology and understanding between the OM–AS boundary spanning team.