Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Exploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) were compared using cross-tabulations (chi-square test for independence) and map visualisations. All Australian locations with ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA values were included in the analysis (n = 20,223). The unit of analysis was Australian locations. RESULTS: Of the 20,223 locations, 2757 (14% of total) had the highest level of acute cardiac access coupled with the highest level of general access. There were 1029 locations with the poorest access (5% of total). Approximately two thirds of locations in Australia were classed as having the highest level of cardiac aftercare. Locations in Major Cities, Inner Regional Australia, and Outer Regional Australia accounted for approximately 98% of this category. There were significant associations between ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA acute (χ2 = 25250.73, df = 28, p<0.001, Cramer's V = 0.559, p<0.001) and Cardiac ARIA aftercare (χ2 = 17204.38, df = 16, Cramer's V = 0.461, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were significant associations between the indices, ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA are not interchangeable. Systematic differences were apparent which can be attributed largely to the underlying specificity of the Cardiac ARIA (a time critical index that uses distance to the service of interest) compared to general accessibility quantified by the ARIA+ model (an index that uses distance to population centre). It is where the differences are located geographically that have a tangible impact upon the communities in these locations-i.e. peri-urban areas of the major capital cities, and around the more remote regional centres. There is a strong case for specific access models to be developed and updated to assist with efficient deployment of resources and targeted service provision. The reasoning behind the differences highlighted will be generalisable to any comparison between general and service-specific access models.

Access to cardiac rehabilitation does not equate to attendance.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Timely access to appropriate cardiac care is critical for optimizing positive outcomes after a cardiac event. Attendance at cardiac rehabilitation (CR) remains less than optimal (10%-30%). Our aim was to derive an objective, comparable, geographic measure reflecting access to cardiac services after a cardiac event in Australia. METHODS: An expert panel defined a single patient care pathway and a hierarchy of the minimum health services for CR and secondary prevention. Using geographic information systems a numeric/alpha index was modelled to describe access before and after a cardiac event. The aftercare phase was modelled into five alphabetical categories: from category A (access to medical service, pharmacy, CR, pathology within 1 h) to category E (no services available within 1 h). RESULTS: Approximately 96% or 19 million people lived within 1 h of the four basic services to support CR and secondary prevention, including 96% of older Australians and 75% of the indigenous population. Conversely, 14% (64,000) indigenous people resided in population locations that had poor access to health services that support CR after a cardiac event. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated that the majority of Australians had excellent 'geographic' access to services to support CR and secondary prevention. Therefore, it appears that it is not the distance to services that affects attendance. Our 'geographic' lens has identified that more research on socioeconomic, sociological or psychological aspects to attendance is needed.