Expertise and infrastructure capacity impacts acute coronary syndrome outcomes.

Objective Effective translation of evidence to practice may depend on systems of care characteristics within the health service. The present study evaluated associations between hospital expertise and infrastructure capacity and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care as part of the SNAPSHOT ACS registry. Methods A survey collected hospital systems and process data and our analysis developed a score to assess hospital infrastructure and expertise capacity. Patient-level data from a registry of 4387 suspected ACS patients enrolled over a 2-week period were used and associations with guideline care and in-hospital and 6-, 12- and 18-month outcomes were measured. Results Of 375 participating hospitals, 348 (92.8%) were included in the analysis. Higher expertise was associated with increased coronary angiograms (440/1329; 33.1%), 580/1656 (35.0%) and 609/1402 (43.4%) for low, intermediate and high expertise capacity respectively; P<0.001) and the prescription of guideline therapies observed a tendency for an association with (531/1329 (40.0%), 733/1656 (44.3%) and 603/1402 (43.0%) for low, intermediate and high expertise capacity respectively; P=0.056), but not rehabilitation (474/1329 (35.7%), 603/1656 (36.4%) and 535/1402 (38.2%) for low, intermediate and high expertise capacity respectively; P=0.377). Higher expertise capacity was associated with a lower incidence of major adverse events (152/1329 (11.4%), 142/1656 (8.6%) and 149/149 (10.6%) for low, intermediate and high expertise capacity respectively; P=0.026), as well as adjusted mortality within 18 months (low vs intermediate expertise capacity: odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.08, P=0.153; intermediate vs high expertise capacity: OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86, P=0.003). Conclusions Both higher-level expertise in decision making and infrastructure capacity are associated with improved evidence translation and survival over 18 months of an ACS event and have clear healthcare design and policy implications. What is known about the topic? There are comprehensive guidelines for treating ACS patients, but Australia and New Zealand registry data reveal substantial gaps in delivery of best practice care across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote health services, raising questions of equity of access and outcome. Greater mortality and morbidity gains can be achieved by increasing the application of current evidence-based therapies than by developing new therapy innovations. Health service system characteristics may be barriers or enablers to the delivery of best practice care and need to be identified and evaluated for correlations with performance indicators and outcomes in order to improve health service design. What does this paper add? This study measures two system characteristics, namely expertise and infrastructure, evaluating the relationship with ACS guideline application and clinical outcomes in a large and diverse cohort of Australian and New Zealand hospitals. The study identifies decision-making expertise and infrastructure capacity, to a lesser degree, as enabling characteristics to help improve patient outcomes. What are the implications for practitioners? In the design of health services to improve access and equity, expertise must be preserved. However, it is difficult to have experienced personnel at the bedside no matter where the health service, and engineering innovative systems and processes of care to facilitate delivery of expertise should be considered.

Acute coronary syndrome care across Australia and New Zealand: the SNAPSHOT ACS study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise management of suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Australia and New Zealand, and to assess the application of recommended therapies according to published guidelines. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: All patients hospitalised with suspected or confirmed ACS between 14 and 27 May 2012 were enrolled from participating sites in Australia and New Zealand, which were identified through public records and health networks. Descriptive and logistic regression analysis was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of guideline-recommended investigations and therapies, and inhospital clinical events (death, new or recurrent myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, cardiac arrest and worsening congestive heart failure). RESULTS: Of 478 sites that gained ethics approval to participate, 286 sites provided data on 4398 patients with suspected or confirmed ACS. Patients' mean age was 67 2013s (SD, 15 2013s), 40% were women, and the median Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score was 119 (interquartile range, 96-144). Most patients (66%) presented to principal referral hospitals. MI was diagnosed in 1436 patients (33%), unstable angina or likely ischaemic chest pain in 929 (21%), unlikely ischaemic chest pain in 1196 (27%), and 837 patients (19%) had other diagnoses not due to ACS. Of the patients with MI, 1019 (71%) were treated with angiography, 610 (43%) with percutaneous coronary intervention and 116 (8%) with coronary artery bypass grafting. Invasive management was less likely with increasing patient risk (GRACE score < 100, 90.1% v 101-150, 81.3% v 151-200, 49.4% v > 200, 36.1%; P < 0.001). The inhospital mortality rate was 4.5% and recurrent MI rate was 5.1%. After adjusting for patient risk and other variables, significant variations in care and outcomes by hospital classification and jurisdiction were evident. CONCLUSION: This first comprehensive combined Australia and New Zealand audit of ACS care identified variations in the application of the ACS evidence base and varying rates of inhospital clinical events. A focus on integrated clinical service delivery may provide greater translation of evidence to practice and improve ACS outcomes in Australia and New Zealand.