Data-driven collaborative QUality improvement in Cardiac Rehabilitation (QUICR) to increase program completion: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of deaths and disability worldwide. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) effectively reduces the risk of future cardiac events and is strongly recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, CR program quality is highly variable with divergent data systems, which, when combined, potentially contribute to persistently low completion rates. The QUality Improvement in Cardiac Rehabilitation (QUICR) trial aims to determine whether a data-driven collaborative quality improvement intervention delivered at the program level over 12 months: (1) increases CR program completion in eligible patients with CHD (primary outcome), (2) reduces hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and deaths, and costs, (3) improves the proportion of patients receiving guideline-indicated CR according to national and international benchmarks, and (4) is feasible and sustainable for CR staff to implement routinely. METHODS: QUICR is a multi-centre, type-2, hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with 12-month follow-up. Eligible CR programs (n = 40) and the individual patient data within them (n ~ 2,000) recruited from two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria) are randomized 1:1 to the intervention (collaborative quality improvement intervention that uses data to identify and manage gaps in care) or control (usual care with data collection only). This sample size is required to achieve 80% power to detect a difference in completion rate of 22%. Outcomes will be assessed using intention-to-treat principles. Mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models accounting for clusters within allocated groupings will be applied to analyse primary and secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: Addressing poor participation in CR by patients with CHD has been a longstanding challenge that needs innovative strategies to change the status-quo. This trial will harness the collaborative power of CR programs working simultaneously on common problem areas and using local data to drive performance. The use of data linkage for collection of outcomes offers an efficient way to evaluate this intervention and support the improvement of health service delivery. ETHICS: Primary ethical approval was obtained from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH01093), along with site-specific governance approvals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12623001239651 (30/11/2023) ( https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386540&isReview=true ).

Using Mobile Ecological Momentary Assessment to Understand Consumption and Context Around Online Food Delivery Use: Pilot Feasibility and Acceptability Study.

BACKGROUND: Mobile ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a powerful tool for collecting real-time and contextual data from individuals. As our reliance on online technologies to increase convenience accelerates, the way we access food is changing. Online food delivery (OFD) services may further encourage unhealthy food consumption habits, given the high availability of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods. We used EMA to understand the real-time effects of OFD on individuals' food choices and consumption behaviors. OBJECTIVE: The primary aims of this pilot study were to assess the feasibility and acceptability of using EMA in young users of OFD and compare 2 different EMA sampling methods. The secondary aims were to gather data on OFD events and their context and examine any correlations between demographics, lifestyle chronic disease risk factors, and OFD use. METHODS: This study used EMA methods via a mobile app (mEMASense, ilumivu Inc). Existing users of OFD services aged 16 to 35 years in Australia who had access to a smartphone were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: signal-contingent or event-contingent. The signal-contingent group was monitored over 3 days between 7 AM and 10 PM. They received 5 prompts each day to complete EMA surveys via the smartphone app. In contrast, the event-contingent group was monitored over 7 days and was asked to self-report any instance of OFD. RESULTS: A total of 102 participants were analyzed, with 53 participants in the signal-contingent group and 49 participants in the event-contingent group. Compliance rates, indicating the feasibility of signal-contingent and event-contingent protocols, were similar at 72.5% (574/792) and 73.2% (251/343), respectively. Feedback from the participants suggested that the EMA app was not easy to use, which affected their acceptability of the study. Participants in the event-contingent group were 3.53 (95% CI 1.52-8.17) times more likely to have had an OFD event captured during the study. Pizza (23/124, 18.5%) and fried chicken (18/124, 14.5%) comprised a bulk of the 124 OFD orders captured. Most orders were placed at home (98/124, 79%) for 1 person (68/124, 54.8%). Age (incidence rate ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99; P=.03) and dependents (incidence rate ratio 2.01, 95% CI 1.16-3.49; P=.01) were significantly associated with the number of OFD events in a week after adjusting for gender, socioeconomic status, diet quality score, and perceived stress levels. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study showed that EMA using an event-contingent sampling approach may be a better method to capture OFD events and context than signal-contingent sampling. The compliance rates showed that both sampling methods were feasible and acceptable. Although the findings from this study have gathered some insight on the consumption and context of OFD in young people, further studies are required to develop targeted interventions.

Age-Related Variation in the Provision of Primary Care Services and Medication Prescriptions for Patients with Cardiovascular Disease.

As population aging progresses, demands of patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) on the primary care services is inevitably increased. However, the utilisation of primary care services across varying age groups is unknown. The study aims to explore age-related variations in provision of chronic disease management plans, mental health care, guideline-indicated cardiovascular medications and influenza vaccination among patients with CVD over differing ages presenting to primary care. Data for patients with CVD were extracted from 50 Australian general practices. Logistic regression, accounting for covariates and clustering effects by practices, was used for statistical analysis. Of the 14,602 patients with CVD (mean age, 72.5 years), patients aged 65-74, 75-84 and ≥85 years were significantly more likely to have a GP management plan prepared (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.6, 1.88 and 1.55, respectively, p < 0.05), have a formal team care arrangement (aOR: 1.49, 1.8, 1.65, respectively, p < 0.05) and have a review of either (aOR: 1.63, 2.09, 1.93, respectively, p < 0.05) than those < 65 years. Patients aged ≥ 65 years were more likely to be prescribed blood-pressure-lowering medications and to be vaccinated for influenza. However, the adjusted odds of being prescribed lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medications and receiving mental health care were significantly lowest among patients ≥ 85 years. There are age-related variations in provision of primary care services and pharmacological therapy. GPs are targeting care plans to older people who are more likely to have long-term conditions and complex needs.

Objective risk assessment vs standard care for acute coronary syndromes-The Australian GRACE Risk tool Implementation Study (AGRIS): a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Structured risk-stratification to guide clinician assessment and engagement with evidence-based therapies may reduce care variance and improve patient outcomes for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The Australian Grace Risk score Intervention Study (AGRIS) explored the impact of the GRACE Risk Tool for stratification of ischaemic and bleeding risk in ACS. While hospitals in the active arm had a higher overall rate of invasive ACS management, there was neutral impact on important secondary prevention prescriptions/referrals, hospital performance measures, myocardial infarction and 12-month mortality leading to early trial cessation. Given the Grace Risk Tool is under investigation internationally, this process evaluation study provides important insights into the possible contribution of implementation fidelity on the AGRIS study findings. METHODS: Using maximum variation sampling, five hospitals were selected from the 12 centres enrolled in the active arm of AGRIS. From these facilities, 16 local implementation stakeholders (Cardiology advanced practice nurses, junior and senior doctors, study coordinators) consented to a semi-structured interview guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Directed Content Analysis of qualitative data was structured using the Capability/Opportunity/Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. RESULTS: Physical capability was enhanced by tool usability. While local stakeholders supported educating frontline clinicians, non-cardiology clinicians struggled with specialist terminology. Physical opportunity was enhanced by the paper-based format but was hampered when busy clinicians viewed risk-stratification as one more thing to do, or when form visibility was neglected. Social opportunity was supported by a culture of research/evidence yet challenged by clinical workflow and rotating medical officers. Automatic motivation was strengthened by positive reinforcement. Reflective motivation revealed the GRACE Risk Tool as supporting but potentially overriding clinical judgment. Divergent professional roles and identity were a major barrier to integration of risk-stratification into routine Emergency Department practice. The cumulative result revealed poor form completion behaviors and a failure to embed risk-stratification into routine patient assessment, communication, documentation, and clinical practice behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous factors negatively influenced AGRIS implementation fidelity. Given the prominence of risk assessment recommendations in United States, European and Australian guidelines, strategies that strengthen collaboration with Emergency Departments and integrate automated processes for risk-stratification may improve future translation internationally.

Gender Comparison of Receipt of Government-Funded Health Services and Medication Prescriptions for the Management of Patients With Cardiovascular Disease in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and risk factors remains a major burden in terms of disease, disability, and death in the Australian population and mental health is considered as an important risk factor affecting cardiovascular disease. A multidisciplinary collaborative approach in primary care is required to ensure an optimal outcome for managing cardiovascular patients with mental health issues. Medicare introduced numerous primary care health services and medications that are subsidised by the Australian government in order to provide a more structured approach to reduce and manage CVD. However, the utilisation of these services nor gender comparison for CVD management in primary care has been explored. Therefore, the aim is to compare the provision of subsidised chronic disease management plans (CDMPs), mental health care and prescription of guideline-indicated medications to men and women with CVD in primary care practices for secondary prevention. METHODS: De-identified data for all active patients with CVD were extracted from 50 Australian primary care practices. Outcomes included the frequency of receipt of CDMPs, mental health care and prescription of evidence-based medications. Analyses adjusted for demography and clinical characteristics, stratified by gender, were performed using logistic regression and accounted for clustering effects by practices. RESULTS: Data for 14,601 patients with CVD (39.4% women) were collected. The odds of receiving the CDMPs was significantly greater amongst women than men (preparation of general practice management plan [GPMP]: (46% vs 43%; adjusted OR [95% CI]: 1.22 [1.12, 1.34]). Women were more likely to have diagnosed with mental health issues (32% vs 20%, p<0.0001), however, the adjusted odds of men and women receiving any government-subsidised mental health care were similar. Women were less often prescribed blood pressure, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medications. After adjustment, only an antiplatelet medication or agent was less likely to be prescribed to women than men (44% vs 51%; adjusted OR [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.76, 0.94]). CONCLUSION: Women were more likely to receive CDMPs but less likely to receive antiplatelet medications than men, no gender difference was observed in the receipt of mental health care. However, the receipt of the CDMPs and the mental health treatment consultations were suboptimal and better use of these existing services could improve ongoing CVD management.

Objective Risk Assessment vs Standard Care for Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although international guidelines recommend use of the Global Registries of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) to guide acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment decisions, the prospective utility of the GRS in improving care and outcomes is unproven. Objective: To assess the effect of routine GRS implementation on guideline-indicated treatments and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with ACS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cluster (hospital-level) randomized open-label blinded end point (PROBE) clinical trial using a multicenter ACS registry of acute care cardiology services. Fixed sampling of the first 10 patients within calendar month, with either ST-segment elevation or non-ST-segment elevation ACS. The study enrolled patients from June 2014 to March 2018, and data were analyzed between February 2020 and April 2020. Interventions: Implementation of routine risk stratification using the GRS and guideline recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a performance score based on receipt of early invasive treatment, discharge prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies, and cardiac rehabilitation referral. Clinical outcomes included a composite of all-cause death and/or myocardial infarction (MI) within 1 year. Results: This study enrolled 2318 patients from 24 hospitals and was stopped prematurely owing to futility. Of the patients enrolled, median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-74 years), 29.5% were women (n = 684), and 62.9% were considered high risk (n = 1433). Provision of all 3 measures among high-risk patients did not differ between the randomized arms (GRS: 424 of 717 [59.9%] vs control: 376 of 681 [55.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63-1.71; P = .88). The provision of early invasive treatment was increased compared with the control arm (GRS: 1042 of 1135 [91.8%] vs control: 989 of 1183 [83.6%]; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.30-3.96; P = .004). Prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies (GRS: 864 of 1135 [76.7%] vs control: 893 of 1183 [77.5%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38) and cardiac rehabilitation (GRS: 855 of 1135 [75.1%] vs control: 861 of 1183 [72.8%]; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.44) were not different. By 12 months, GRS intervention was not associated with a significant reduction in death or MI compared with the control group (GRS: 96 of 1044 [9.2%] vs control: 146 of 1087 [13.4%]; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-1.14). Conclusions and Relevance: Routine GRS implementation in cardiology services with high levels of clinical care was associated with an increase in early invasive treatment but not other aspects of care. Low event rates and premature study discontinuation indicates the need for further, larger scale randomized studies. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614000550606.

Junk Food on Demand: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Nutritional Quality of Popular Online Food Delivery Outlets in Australia and New Zealand.

The demand for convenience and the increasing role of digital technology in everyday life has fueled the use of online food delivery services (OFD's), of which young people are the largest users globally. OFD's are disrupting traditional food environments, yet research evaluating the public health implications of such services is lacking. We evaluated the characteristics and nutritional quality of popular food outlets on a market-leading platform (UberEATS®) in a cross-sectional observational study conducted in two international cities: Sydney (Australia) and Auckland (New Zealand). A systematic search using publicly available population-level data was used to identify geographical areas with above-average concentrations (>30%) of young people (15-34-years). A standardized data extraction protocol was used to identify the ten most popular food outlets within each area. The nutritional quality of food outlets was assessed using the Food Environment Score (FES) (range: -10 'unhealthiest' to 10 'healthiest'). Additionally, the most popular menu items from each food outlet were classified as discretionary or core foods/beverages according to the Australian Dietary Guidelines. The majority of popular food outlets were classified as 'unhealthy' (FES range -10 to -5; 73.5%, 789/1074) and were predominately takeaway franchise stores (59.6%, 470/789, e.g., McDonald's®). 85.9% of all popular menu items were discretionary (n = 4958/5769). This study highlights the pervasion and accessibility of discretionary foods on OFD's. This study demonstrated that the most popular food outlets on the market-leading online food delivery service are unhealthy and popular menu items are mostly discretionary foods; facilitating the purchase of foods of poor nutritional quality. Consideration of OFD's in public health nutrition strategies and policies in critical.

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Medication Prescription in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background Sex differences in the management of cardiovascular disease have been reported in secondary care. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of systematically investigated sex differences in cardiovascular medication prescription among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care. Methods and Results PubMed and Embase were searched between 2000 and 2019 for observational studies reporting on the sex-specific prevalence of aspirin, statins, and antihypertensive medication prescription, including beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and diuretics, in primary care. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled women-to-men prevalence ratios for each cardiovascular medication prescription. Metaregression models assessed the impact of age and year on the findings. A total of 43 studies were included, involving 2 264 600 participants (28% women) worldwide. Participants' mean age ranged from 51 to 76 years. The pooled prevalence of cardiovascular medication prescription for women was 41% for aspirin, 60% for statins, and 68% for any antihypertensive medications. Corresponding rates for men were 56%, 63%, and 69% respectively. The pooled women-to-men prevalence ratios were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92) for aspirin, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) for statins, and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95-1.08) for any antihypertensive medications. Women were less likely to be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89) but more likely with diuretics (1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.37). Mean age, mean age difference between the sexes, and year of study had no significant impact on findings. Conclusions Sex differences in the prescription of cardiovascular medication exist among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care, with a lower prevalence of aspirin, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors prescription in women and a lower prevalence of diuretics prescription in men.

Sex Differences in the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sex differences exist in the assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores/risk factors in primary health care. DESIGN/METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched on 31 January 2017. Clinical trials and observational studies were included if they reported on the assessment of CVD risk score, blood pressure (BP), cholesterol or smoking status in primary health care, stratified by sex. Meta-analyses were performed, using random effects models, to determine differences between sexes, separately for adjusted and unadjusted data. RESULTS: Of 14,928 studies found in the search, 22 studies (including 4,754,782 patients) were included in the systematic review with the meta-analysis for quantitative assessment. Overall, the assessment rates of CVD risk score and risk factors were similar in women and men (CVD risk score: 30.7% vs. 35.2% [difference (95% CI): -4.5 (-5.1, -3.9)]; BP: 91.3% vs. 88.5% [2.8 (2.5, 3.0)]; cholesterol: 69.9% vs. 71.0% [-1.1 (-1.5, -0.8)]; and smoking: 85.9% vs. 86.7% [-0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)]). The pooled, adjusted likelihood of having the risk score, BP and cholesterol assessments were comparable between women and men: OR (95% CI): 0.87 (0.70, 1.07); 1.41 (0.89, 2.25); and 1.15 (0.82, 1.60), respectively. However, women were 32% less likely to be assessed for smoking (0.68 [0.47, 1.00]). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies and the risk of publication bias was moderate. CONCLUSION: Despite the guideline recommendations, assessment of CVD risk score in primary health care was low in both sexes. Further, women were less likely to be assessed for their smoking status than men, whereas no sex discrepancies were found for BP and cholesterol assessments.

Socioeconomic Equity in the Receipt of In-Hospital Care and Outcomes in Australian Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: The CONCORDANCE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a social determinant of both health and receipt of health care services, but its impact is under-studied in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to examine the influence of SES on in-hospital care, and clinical events for patients presenting with an ACS to public hospitals in Australia. METHODS: Data from 9064 ACS patient records were collected from 41 public hospitals nationwide from 2009 as part of the Cooperative National Registry of Acute Coronary Syndrome Care (CONCORDANCE) registry. For this analysis, we divided the cohort into four socioeconomic groups (based on postcode of usual residence) and compared the in-hospital care provided and clinical outcomes before and after adjustment for both patient clinical characteristics and hospital clustering. RESULTS: Patients were divided into four SES groups (from the most to the least disadvantaged: 2042 (23%) vs. 2104 (23%) vs. 1994 (22%) vs. 2968 (32%)). Following adjustments for patient characteristics, there were no differences in the odds of receiving coronary angiogram, revascularisation, prescription of recommended medication, or referral to cardiac rehabilitation across the SES groups (p=0.06, 0.69, 0.89 and 0.79, respectively). After adjustment for clinical characteristics, no associations were observed for in-hospital and cumulative death (p=0.62 and p=0.71, respectively). However, the most disadvantaged group were 37% more likely to have a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) than the least disadvantaged group (OR (95% CI): 1.37 (1.1, 1.71), p=0.02) driven by incidence of in-hospital heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Although there may be gaps in the delivery of care, this delivery of care does not differ by patient's SES. It is an encouraging affirmation that all patients in Australian public hospitals receive equal in-hospital care, and the likelihood of death is comparable between the SES groups.

The effect of socioeconomic disadvantage on prescription of guideline-recommended medications for patients with acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are varying data on whether socioeconomic status (SES) affects the treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our aim was to obtain a reliable estimate of the effect of SES on discharge prescription of medications following an ACS through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and Global Health were searched systematically on 6th April 2016. Studies were eligible if the participants had ACS and reported the rate/odds of guideline-recommended ACS medications prescription (aspirin, antiplatelet, beta blocker, angiotensin co-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and statin) at discharge stratified by SES. A meta-analysis was performed to pool the estimates, comparing the prescription ratio (PR) between the lowest and the highest SES groups. RESULTS: Of 252 articles found from the search, seven met the eligibility criteria and it included 41,462 (20,986 from the lowest SES group) patients. We found that the individual/neighbourhood level SES did not affect the prescription of aspirin (PR (95% CI): 0.97 (0.91, 1.03)), but for beta blocker and statin, the lowest SES group were disadvantaged (0.84 (0.73, 0.94), 0.80 (0.62, 0.98), respectively). In contrast, ACEi were prescribed more often to the lowest individual/neighbourhood level SES group than the highest (1.13 (1.05, 1.22)). Although the risk of bias was low, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the recommendations to close the treatment gap, the rate of prescription of guideline-recommended medications in managing ACS is significantly different between patients with the lowest and the highest groups. A solution is needed to provide equitable care across the SES groups. PROSPERO REGISTRY: Systematic review registration no.: CRD42016048503. Registered 28 September 2016.

Gender inequalities in cardiovascular risk factor assessment and management in primary healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify contemporary differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor assessment and management between women and men in Australian primary healthcare services. METHODS: Records of routinely attending patients were sampled from 60 Australian primary healthcare services in 2012 for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Risk using Electronic Decision Support study. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare the rate of CVD risk factor assessment and recommended medication prescriptions, by gender. RESULTS: Of 53 085 patients, 58% were female. Adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, women were less likely to have sufficient risk factors measured for CVD risk assessment (OR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.81 to 0.96)). Among 13 294 patients (47% women) in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup, the adjusted odds of prescription of guideline-recommended medications were greater for women than men: 1.12 (1.01 to 1.23). However, there was heterogeneity by age (p <0.001), women in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup aged 35-54 years were less likely to be prescribed the medications (0.63 (0.52 to 0.77)), and women in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup aged ≥65 years were more likely to be prescribed the medications (1.34 (1.17 to 1.54)) than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Women attending primary healthcare services in Australia were less likely than men to have risk factors measured and recorded such that absolute CVD risk can be assessed. For those with, or at high risk of, CVD, the prescription of appropriate preventive medications was more frequent in older women, but less frequent in younger women, compared with their male counterparts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 12611000478910, Pre-results.

The household economic burden for acute coronary syndrome survivors in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Studies of chronic diseases are associated with a financial burden on households. We aimed to determine if survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) experience household economic burden and to quantify any potential burden by examining level of economic hardship and factors associated with hardship. METHODS: Australian patients admitted to hospital with ACS during 2-week period in May 2012, enrolled in SNAPSHOT ACS audit and who were alive at 18 months after index admission were followed-up via telephone/paper survey. Regression models were used to explore factors related to out-of-pocket expenses and economic hardship. RESULTS: Of 1833 eligible patients at baseline, 180 died within 18 months, and 702 patients completed the survey. Mean out-of-pocket expenditure (n = 614) in Australian dollars was A$258.06 (median: A$126.50) per month. The average spending for medical services was A$120.18 (SD: A$310.35) and medications was A$66.25 (SD: A$80.78). In total, 350 (51 %) of patients reported experiencing economic hardship, 78 (12 %) were unable to pay for medical services and 81 (12 %) could not pay for medication. Younger age (18-59 vs ≥80 years (OR): 1.89), no private health insurance (OR: 2.04), pensioner concession card (OR: 1.80), residing in more disadvantaged area (group 1 vs 5 (OR): 1.77), history of CVD (OR: 1.47) and higher out-of-pocket expenses (group 4 vs 1 (OR): 4.57) were more likely to experience hardship. CONCLUSION: Subgroups of ACS patients are experiencing considerable economic burden in Australia. These findings provide important considerations for future policy development in terms of the cost of recommended management for patients.

Should fee-for-service be for all guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care? Observations from the Snapshot ACS study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore the association of health insurance status on the provision of guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care in Australia. METHODS: Consecutive hospitalisations of suspected ACS from 14 to 27 May 2012 enrolled in the Snapshot study of Australian and New Zealand patients were evaluated. Descriptive and logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of patient risk and insurance status with the receipt of care. RESULTS: In all, 3391 patients with suspected ACS from 247 hospitals (23 private) were enrolled in the present study. One-third of patients declared private insurance coverage; of these, 27.9% (304/1088) presented to private facilities. Compared with public patients, privately insured patients were more likely to undergo in-patient echocardiography and receive early angiography; furthermore, in those with a discharge diagnosis of ACS, there was a higher rate of revascularisation (P < 0.001). Each of these attracts potential fee-for-service. In contrast, proportionately fewer privately insured ACS patients were discharged on selected guideline therapies and were referred to a secondary prevention program (P = 0.056), neither of which directly attracts a fee. Typically, as GRACE (the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score rose, so did the level of ACS care; however, propensity-adjusted analyses showed lower in-hospital adverse events among the insured group (odds ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.88; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Fee-for-service reimbursement may explain differences in the provision of selected guideline-advocated components of ACS care between privately insured and public patients.