Search

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-wee 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The provision of equitable acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care in Australia and New Zealand requires an understanding of the sources of variation in the provision of this care. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the variation in care and outcomes between ACS patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) and English proficiency (EP) admitted to Australian and NZ hospitals. Methods: Data were collected from 4387 suspected/confirmed ACS patients from 286 hospitals between May 14 and 27, 2012, who were followed for 18 months. We compared hospital care and outcomes according to the proficiency of English using logistic regressions. Results: The 294 LEP patients were older (70.9 vs 66.3 years; P < .001) and had higher prevalence of hypertension (71.1% vs 62.8%; P = .004), diabetes (40.5% vs 24.3%; P < .001), and renal impairment (16.3% vs 11.1%; P = .007) compared with the 4093 EP patients. Once in hospital, there was no difference in receipt of percutaneous coronary intervention (57.0% vs 55.4%; P = .78) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (10.5% vs 11.5%; P = .98). After adjustment for medical history, there were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 groups in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and/or all-cause death during the index admission and fromindex admission to 18months. Conclusions: These results suggest that LEP patients admitted to Australian or New Zealand hospitals with suspected ACS may not experience inequity in hospital care and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]