BACKGROUND: Access to cardiac services is essential for appropriate implementation of evidence-based therapies to improve outcomes. The Cardiac Accessibility and Remoteness Index for Australia (Cardiac ARIA) aimed to derive an objective, geographic measure reflecting access to cardiac services. METHODS AND RESULTS: An expert panel defined an evidence-based clinical pathway. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the team developed a numeric/alphabetic index at 2 points along the continuum of care. The acute category (numeric) measured the time from the emergency call to arrival at an appropriate medical facility via road ambulance. The aftercare category (alphabetic) measured access to 4 basic services (family doctor, pharmacy, cardiac rehabilitation, and pathology services) when a patient returned to his or her community. The numeric index ranged from 1 (access to principal referral center with cardiac catheterization service ≤1 hour) to 8 (no ambulance service, >3 hours to medical facility, air transport required). The alphabetic index ranged from A (all 4 services available within a 1-hour drive-time) to E (no services available within 1 hour). The panel found that 13.9 million Australians (71%) resided within Cardiac ARIA 1A locations (hospital with cardiac catheterization laboratory and all aftercare within 1 hour). Those outside Cardiac 1A were overrepresented by people >65 years of age (32%) and indigenous people (60%). CONCLUSIONS: The Cardiac ARIA index demonstrated substantial inequity in access to cardiac services in Australia. This methodology can be used to inform cardiology health service planning and could be applied to other common disease states within other regions of the world.
BACKGROUND: Access to cardiac services is essential for appropriate implementation of evidence-based therapies to improve outcomes. The Cardiac Accessibility and Remoteness Index for Australia (Cardiac ARIA) aimed to derive an objective, geographic measure reflecting access to cardiac services. METHODS AND RESULTS: An expert panel defined an evidence-based clinical pathway. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the team developed a numeric/alphabetic index at 2 points along the continuum of care. The acute category (numeric) measured the time from the emergency call to arrival at an appropriate medical facility via road ambulance. The aftercare category (alphabetic) measured access to 4 basic services (family doctor, pharmacy, cardiac rehabilitation, and pathology services) when a patient returned to his or her community. The numeric index ranged from 1 (access to principal referral center with cardiac catheterization service ≤1 hour) to 8 (no ambulance service, >3 hours to medical facility, air transport required). The alphabetic index ranged from A (all 4 services available within a 1-hour drive-time) to E (no services available within 1 hour). The panel found that 13.9 million Australians (71%) resided within Cardiac ARIA 1A locations (hospital with cardiac catheterization laboratory and all aftercare within 1 hour). Those outside Cardiac 1A were overrepresented by people >65 years of age (32%) and indigenous people (60%). CONCLUSIONS: The Cardiac ARIA index demonstrated substantial inequity in access to cardiac services in Australia. This methodology can be used to inform cardiology health service planning and could be applied to other common disease states within other regions of the world.
Authors: Hélène Bihan; Kathrin Backholer; Anna Peeters; Christopher E Stevenson; Jonathan E Shaw; Dianna J Magliano Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Scott C Bell; Marcus A Mall; Hector Gutierrez; Milan Macek; Susan Madge; Jane C Davies; Pierre-Régis Burgel; Elizabeth Tullis; Claudio Castaños; Carlo Castellani; Catherine A Byrnes; Fiona Cathcart; Sanjay H Chotirmall; Rebecca Cosgriff; Irmgard Eichler; Isabelle Fajac; Christopher H Goss; Pavel Drevinek; Philip M Farrell; Anna M Gravelle; Trudy Havermans; Nicole Mayer-Hamblett; Nataliya Kashirskaya; Eitan Kerem; Joseph L Mathew; Edward F McKone; Lutz Naehrlich; Samya Z Nasr; Gabriela R Oates; Ciaran O'Neill; Ulrike Pypops; Karen S Raraigh; Steven M Rowe; Kevin W Southern; Sheila Sivam; Anne L Stephenson; Marco Zampoli; Felix Ratjen Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Paul D Xanthos; Brett A Gordon; Stephen Begg; Voltaire Nadurata; Michael I C Kingsley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David A Alter; Barry Franklin; Dennis T Ko; Peter C Austin; Douglas S Lee; Paul I Oh; Therese A Stukel; Jack V Tu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: James R Langabeer; Timothy D Henry; Dean J Kereiakes; Jami Dellifraine; Jamie Emert; Zheng Wang; Leilani Stuart; Richard King; Wendy Segrest; Peter Moyer; James G Jollis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 5.501