Survival after an acute coronary syndrome: 18-month outcomes from the Australian and New Zealand SNAPSHOT ACS study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the availability of a catheterisation laboratory and evidence-based care on the 18-month mortality rate in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Management and outcomes are described for patients enrolled in the 2012 Australian and New Zealand SNAPSHOT ACS audit. Patients were stratified according to their presentation to hospitals with or without cardiac catheterisation facilities. Data linkage ascertained patient vital status 18 months after admission. Descriptive and Cox proportional hazards analyses determined predictors of outcomes, and were used to estimate the numbers of deaths that could be averted by improved application of evidence-based care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality for ACS patients from admission to 18 months after admission. RESULTS: Definite ACS patients presenting to catheterisation-capable (CC) hospitals (n = 1326) were more likely to undergo coronary angiography than those presenting to non-CC hospitals (n = 1031) (61.5% v 50.8%; P = 0.0001), receive timely reperfusion (for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients: 45.2% v 19.2%; P < 0.001), and be referred for cardiac rehabilitation (57% v 53%; P = 0.05). All-cause mortality over 18 months was highest for STEMI (16.2%) and non-STEMI (16.3%) patients, and lowest for those presenting with unstable angina (6.8%) and non-cardiac chest pain (4.8%; P < 0.0001 for trend). After adjustment for patient propensity to present to a CC hospital and patient risk, presentation to a CC hospital was associated with 21% (95% CI, 2%-37%) lower mortality than presentation to a non-CC hospital. This mortality difference was attenuated after adjusting for delivery of evidence-based care. CONCLUSION: In Australia and New Zealand, the availability of a catheterisation laboratory appears to have a significant impact on long-term mortality in ACS patients, which is still substantial. This mortality may be reduced by improvements in evidence-based care in both CC and non-CC hospitals.

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.

Using what we gather--harnessing information for improved care.

Currently available data can be used to focus clinical quality, patient centredness and safety of care in hospitals.

Does home treatment affect delirium? A randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation of elderly and care at home or usual treatment (The REACH-OUT trial).

BACKGROUND: delirium is a frequent adverse consequence of hospitalisation for older patients, but there has been little research into its prevention. A recent study of Hospital in the Home (admission substitution) noted less delirium in the home-treated group. SETTING: a tertiary referral teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. METHODS: we randomised 104 consecutive patients referred for geriatric rehabilitation to be treated in one of two ways, either in Hospital in the Home (early discharge) or in hospital, in a rehabilitation ward. We compared the occurrence of delirium measured by the confusion assessment method. Secondary outcome measures were length of stay, hospital bed days, cost of acute care and rehabilitation, functional independence measure (FIM), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and geriatric depression score (GDS) assessed on discharge and at 1- and 6-month follow-up and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: the home group had lower odds of developing delirium during rehabilitation [odds ratio (OR) = 0.17; 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.65], shorter duration of rehabilitation (15.97 versus 23.09 days; P = 0.0164) and used less hospital bed days (20.31 versus 40.09, P < or = 0.0001). The cost was lower for the acute plus rehabilitation phases (7,680 pounds versus 10,598 pounds; P = 0.0109) and the rehabilitation phase alone (2,523 pounds versus 6,100 pounds; P < or = 0.0001). There was no difference in FIM, MMSE or GDS scores. the home group was more satisfied (P = 0.0057). CONCLUSIONS: home rehabilitation for frail elderly after acute hospitalisation is a viable option for selected patients and is associated with a lower risk of delirium, greater patient satisfaction, lower cost and more efficient hospital bed use.