Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics: An Australian Cost-Benefit Study

OBJECTIVE

Chest pain is a large health care burden in Australia and around the world. Its management requires specialist assessment and diagnostic tests, which can be costly and often lead to unnecessary hospital admissions. There is a growing unmet clinical need to improve the efficiency and management of chest pain. This study aims to show the cost-benefit of rapid access chest pain clinics (RACC) as an alternative to hospital admission.

DESIGN

Retrospective cost-benefit analysis for 12 months.

SETTING

RACCs in three Sydney tertiary referral hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per patient.

RESULTS

Hospitals A, B and C implemented RACCs but each operating with slightly different staffing, referral patterns, and diagnostic services. All RACCs had similar costs per patient of AUD$455.25, AUD$427.12 and AUD$474.45, hospitals A, B and C respectively, and similar cost benefits per patient of AUD$1168.75, AUD$1196.88 and AUD$1,149.55, respectively. At least 28%, 26% and 29% of these RACC patients for hospitals A, B, and C, respectively, would have otherwise had to have been admitted to hospital for the model to be cost-beneficial.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that a RACC model of care is cost-beneficial in the state of NSW as an alternative strategy to inpatient care for managing chest pain. Scaling up to a national level could represent an even larger benefit for the Australian health system.

Long-Term Outcomes Following Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinic Assessment: First Australian Data

Australian guidelines recommend prompt evaluation of patients presenting to emergency departments with chest pain, found to be low risk for acute coronary syndromes, and cardiologist-led Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics (RACPC) have been proposed as a model to provide such care. Initial Australian experience of RACPCs suggests excellent short-term outcomes, and that they are cost-beneficial, though little data exists examining longer-term outcomes. The present study therefore examines such longer-term outcomes to beyond 5 years following presentation to an RACPC in an Australian tertiary metropolitan centre.

Rapid Access Arrhythmia Clinics (RAACs) Versus Usual Care: Improving Efficiency and Safety of Arrhythmia Management

BACKGROUND

Rapid access cardiology services have been proposed for assessment of acute cardiac conditions via an outpatient model-of-care that potentially could reduce hospitalisations. We describe a new Rapid Access Arrhythmia Clinic (RAAC) and compare major safety endpoints to usual care.

METHODS

We matched 312 adult patients with suspected arrhythmia in RAAC to historical age and sex-matched controls discharged from hospital within Western Sydney Local Health District with suspected arrhythmia. The primary endpoint was a composite of time to first unplanned cardiovascular hospitalisation or cardiac death over 12 months.

RESULTS

The average age of RAAC patients was 52.2±18.8 years and 51.6±18.8 years for controls, and 48.4% were female in both groups. Mean time from referral to first attended RAAC appointment was 10.5 days. Most were referred from emergency (177, 56.7%) and cardiologists at time of discharge (65, 20.8%). The most common reason for referral was palpitations (180, 57.7%). In total, 155 (49.7%) had a documented arrhythmia, with the most common being atrial fibrillation/flutter (88, 28.2%). The primary endpoint occurred in 35 (11.2%) patients in the RAAC pathway (97.1[95% CI 70-131.3] per 1,000 person-years), compared to 72 (23.1%) patients for usual care controls (229.5[95% CI 180.2-288.1] per 1,000 person-years). Using a propensity score analysis, RAAC pathway significantly reduced the primary endpoint by 59% compared to usual care (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RAACs for the early investigation and management of suspected arrhythmia is superior to usual care in terms of reduction in unplanned cardiovascular hospitalisation and death.

While you're waiting, a waiting room-based, cardiovascular disease-focused educational program: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) frequently attend outpatient clinics and spend a significant amount of time in waiting rooms. Currently, this time is poorly used. This study aims to investigate whether providing CVD and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education to waiting patients in a cardiology clinic of a large referral hospital improves motivation to change health behaviours, CPR knowledge, behaviours and clinic satisfaction post clinic, and whether there is any impact on reported CVD lifestyle behaviours or relevant CPR outcomes at 30 days.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trial with parallel design to be conducted among 330 patients in the waiting room of a chest pain clinic in a tertiary referral hospital. Intervention (n=220) participants will receive a tablet-delivered series of educational videos catered to self-reported topics of interest (physical activity, blood pressure, diet, medications, smoking and general health) and level of health knowledge. Control (n=110) participants will receive usual care. In a substudy, intervention participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive an extra video on CPR or no extra video. The primary outcome will be the proportion of intervention and control participants who report high motivation to improve physical activity, diet and blood pressure monitoring at end of clinic. The primary outcome of the CPR study will be confidence to perform CPR post clinic. Secondary analysis will examine impact on clinic satisfaction, lifestyle behaviours, CPR knowledge and willingness to perform CPR post clinic and at 30-day follow-up.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been received from the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee. All patients will provide informed consent via a tablet-based eConsent framework. Study results will be disseminated via the usual channels including peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR12618001725257.