Robyn Gallagher1, Cate Ferry2, Dion Candelaria3, Laila Ladak4, Robert Zecchin5. 1. Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: robyn.gallagher@sydney.edu.au. 2. National Heart Foundation of Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; The Aga Khan University, Pakistan. 5. Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Australia, unlike most high-income countries, does not have published benchmarks for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery. This study provides cross-state data on CR delivery for initial benchmarks and assesses performance against international minimal standards. METHODS: A prospective observational study March-May 2017 of CR programs in NSW (n=36), Tasmania (n=2) and ACT (n=1) was undertaken. Data were collected on 11 indicators (published dictionary), then classified as higher or lower performing using the UK National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) criteria. Equity of access to higher performing CR was assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Participants (n=2,436) had a mean age of 66.06±12.54 years, 68.9% were male, 16.2% culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and 2.6% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. At patient level, waiting time was median 15 (Interquartile range [IQR] 9-25) days, 24.3% had an assessment before starting, 41.8% on completion, a median 12 sessions (IQR 6-16) were delivered, which 59.1% completed and 75.4% were linked to ongoing care. At program level, using NACR criteria, 18.0% were classified as higher performing and ≥87.1% met waiting time criteria, however, only 20.5% met duration criteria. Evidence of inequitable access to higher performing programs was present with substantially higher odds for participants living in major cities (OR 28.11 95%CI 18.41, 44.92) and with every decade younger age (OR 1.89-2.94) and lower odds by 89.0% for principal referral hospital-based services (OR 0.11 95%CI 0.08, 0.14) and 31.0% for people having a CALD background (OR 0.69 95%CI 0.49, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial national CR performance benchmarks for quality improvement in Australia. While wait times are minimised, few programs are higher performing or met minimum duration standards. There is an urgent need to resource and support CR quality and access outside of major cities, in principal referral hospitals and for older and diverse patients.
BACKGROUND: Australia, unlike most high-income countries, does not have published benchmarks for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery. This study provides cross-state data on CR delivery for initial benchmarks and assesses performance against international minimal standards. METHODS: A prospective observational study March-May 2017 of CR programs in NSW (n=36), Tasmania (n=2) and ACT (n=1) was undertaken. Data were collected on 11 indicators (published dictionary), then classified as higher or lower performing using the UK National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) criteria. Equity of access to higher performing CR was assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS:Participants (n=2,436) had a mean age of 66.06±12.54 years, 68.9% were male, 16.2% culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and 2.6% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. At patient level, waiting time was median 15 (Interquartile range [IQR] 9-25) days, 24.3% had an assessment before starting, 41.8% on completion, a median 12 sessions (IQR 6-16) were delivered, which 59.1% completed and 75.4% were linked to ongoing care. At program level, using NACR criteria, 18.0% were classified as higher performing and ≥87.1% met waiting time criteria, however, only 20.5% met duration criteria. Evidence of inequitable access to higher performing programs was present with substantially higher odds for participants living in major cities (OR 28.11 95%CI 18.41, 44.92) and with every decade younger age (OR 1.89-2.94) and lower odds by 89.0% for principal referral hospital-based services (OR 0.11 95%CI 0.08, 0.14) and 31.0% for people having a CALD background (OR 0.69 95%CI 0.49, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial national CR performance benchmarks for quality improvement in Australia. While wait times are minimised, few programs are higher performing or met minimum duration standards. There is an urgent need to resource and support CR quality and access outside of major cities, in principal referral hospitals and for older and diverse patients.
Authors: C M Astley; A Beleigoli; R Tavella; J Hendriks; C Gallagher; R Tirimacco; G Wilson; T Barry; R A Clark Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 2.908