Investigation and treatment after non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome for patients presenting to rural or urban hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand: ANZACS-QI 75.

AIMS: Compare the care patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) received in Aotearoa New Zealand depending on the rural-urban category of the hospital they are first admitted to. METHODS: Patients with NSTEACS investigated with invasive coronary angiogram between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019 were included. There were three hospital categories (routine access to percutaneous coronary intervention [urban interventional], other urban [urban non-interventional] and rural) and three ethnicity categories (Maori, Pacific and non-Maori/non-Pacific). Clinical performance measures included: angiography ≤3 days, assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and prescription of secondary prevention medication. RESULTS: Of 26,779 patients, 66.2% presented to urban-interventional, 25.6% to urban non-interventional and 8.2% to rural hospitals. A smaller percentage of patients presenting to urban interventional than urban non-interventional and rural hospitals were Maori (8.1%, 17.0% and 13.0%). Patients presenting to urban interventional hospitals were more likely to receive timely angiography than urban non-interventional or rural hospitals (78.5%, 60.8% and 63.1%). They were also more likely to have a LVEF assessment (78.5%, 65.4% and 66.3%). In contrast, the use of secondary prevention medications at discharge was similar between hospital categories. Maori and Pacific patients presenting to urban interventional hospitals were less likely than non-Maori/non-Pacific to receive timely angiography but more likely to have LVEF assessed. However, LVEF assessment and timely angiography in urban non-interventional and rural hospitals were lower than in urban interventional hospitals for both Maori and non-Maori/non-Pacific. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to urban hospitals without routine interventional access and rural hospitals were less likely to receive LVEF assessment or timely angiography. This disproportionately impacts Maori, who are more likely to live in these hospital catchments.

Outcomes and access to angiography following non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes in patients who present to rural or urban hospitals: ANZACS-QI 72.

AIM: This study's aim was to identify differences in invasive angiography performed and health outcomes for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) presenting to either i) a rural hospital, or an urban hospital ii) with or iii) without routine access to percutaneous intervention (PCI) in New Zealand. METHODS: Patients with NSTEACS between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017 were included. Logistic regression was used to model each of the outcome measures: angiography performed within 1 year; 30-day, 1-year and 2-year all-cause mortality; and readmission within 1 year of presentation with either heart failure, a major adverse cardiac event or major bleeding. RESULTS: There were 42,923 patients included. Compared to urban hospitals with access to PCI, the odds of a patient receiving an angiogram were reduced for rural and urban hospitals without routine access to PCI (odds ratio [OR] 0.82 and 0.75) respectively. There was a small increase in the odds of dying at 2 years (OR 1.16), but not 30 days or 1 year for patients presenting to a rural hospital. CONCLUSION: Patients who present to hospitals without PCI are less likely to receive angiography. Reassuringly there is no difference in mortality, except at 2 years, for patients that present to rural hospitals.

A scope of practice that works 'out here': exploring the effects of a changing medical regulatory environment on a rural New Zealand health service.

INTRODUCTION: In 2008, the Medical Council of New Zealand recognised rural hospital medicine as a vocational scope of practice. The aim was to provide training and professional development standards for medical practitioners working in New Zealand's rural hospitals and to encourage quality systems to become established in rural hospitals. Hokianga Health in New Zealand's far north is an established integrated health service that includes a rural hospital and serves a largely Māori community. The aim of this study was to explore how the new scope had affected health practitioners and the health service at Hokianga Health. METHODS: A case study design was used, employing qualitative methods. Documentary analysis was undertaken tracking change and development at Hokianga Health. Twenty-six documents (10 from within and 16 from outside Hokianga Health) were included in the analysis. Eleven face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees of Hokianga Health. The interviews explored participants' views of the rural hospital medicine scope. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis of the interviews was undertaken using the framework method. The two data sources were analysed separately. RESULTS: Four themes capturing the main issues were identified: (1) 'What I do': articulating the scope of medical practice at Hokianga, (2) 'What we do': the role of the hospital at Hokianga, (3) 'On the fringes', and (4) Survival. With changing regulatory policy an established part of Hokianga Health practice, the hospital aspect was outside the scope of general practice. This mismatch created a vulnerability for individual doctors and threatened the hospital service. The new scope filled the gap, rural hospital medicine together with general practice now covering the whole practice scope at Hokianga Health. With the introduction of the rural hospital medicine scope and the accompanying national definition of a rural hospital came a sense of belonging and increased connectedness, Hokianga Health and its practitioners realigning with the new scope, its policies, processes and language. The new scope brought for the first time a specific focus on the inpatient and emergency care aspects of practice at Hokianga and with this validation of the hospital aspect of the medical practitioners work. The critical importance of a fit-for-purpose scope and rural-specific postgraduate training programs in minimising inequity of care and opportunity for rural communities was emphasised. The importance of benchmarking with its associated costs was also highlighted. The main challenges identified related to the real (as well as potential) increased regulatory requirements of two separate scopes of practice for practitioners and a small rural health service working across primary and secondary care. CONCLUSION: In better equipping medical practitioners for rural hospital work and strengthening hospital systems and standards, the rural hospital medicine scope has met its intentions at Hokianga Health. The rural hospital medicine pathway is a necessary partial solution to rural medical practitioners maintaining a broad skill set. Continued flexibility is required in training programs in order to meet a range of different practitioner and rural health service needs.