Literature DB >> 7650465

Coronary revascularisation: why do rates vary geographically in the UK?

N Black1, S Langham, M Petticrew.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explain the reasons for geographical variation in the use of coronary revascularisation in the United Kingdom.
DESIGN: This was a cross sectional ecological study.
SETTING: NHS and independent hospitals performing coronary revascularisation for the 11.6 million residents of the south east Thames, East Anglian and north western health regions in England plus Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Ayr and Arran health boards in Scotland were included.
SUBJECTS: All residents aged > or = 25 years in 1992-93 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in either the public or private sector were included. MAIN MEASURES: Crude and age-sex standardised intervention rates for residents of the 42 constituent districts and boards were determined. Variation was measured using the systematic component of variation.
RESULTS: Considerable systematic variations in district rates of CABG and PTCA existed. These variations mostly arose from differences in supply factors. Higher rate districts were characterised by being close to a regional revascularisation centre and having a local cardiologist. Demand factors such as the level of need in the population (measured by coronary heart disease mortality) and the lack of use of alternative treatments not only failed to explain the observed variation but were inversely associated with the rate of intervention--an example of the inverse care law. The finding that the residents of more socially deprived districts experienced higher intervention rates was probably subject to confounding due to their close proximity to specialist centres.
CONCLUSIONS: If greater geographical equity of use for the same level of need is to be achieved, attention must be paid to the supply factors that determine levels of utilisation. As responsibility for purchasing these procedures is decentralised, utilisation might become even more unequal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7650465      PMCID: PMC1060130          DOI: 10.1136/jech.49.4.408

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  17 in total

1.  The inverse care law.

Authors:  J T Hart
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1971-02-27       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  A comparison of surgical rates in Canada and in England and Wales.

Authors:  E Vayda
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1973-12-06       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Underprivileged areas: validation and distribution of scores.

Authors:  B Jarman
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1984-12-08

4.  The UK cardiac surgical register, 1977-82.

Authors:  T A English; A R Bailey; J F Dark; W G Williams
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1984-11-03

5.  Dealing with medical practice variations: a proposal for action.

Authors:  J E Wennberg
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Geographical variations in use of surgery for glue ear.

Authors:  N Black
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Supply, workload and utilization: a population-based analysis of surgery in rural Manitoba.

Authors:  L L Roos
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Social class and coronary heart disease.

Authors:  G Rose; M G Marmot
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1981-01

9.  Small-area variations in the use of common surgical procedures: an international comparison of New England, England, and Norway.

Authors:  K McPherson; J E Wennberg; O B Hovind; P Clifford
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1982-11-18       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Regional variation in cataract extraction rates and their relationship with resource supply and need.

Authors:  H F Sanderson
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 18.000

View more
  30 in total

1.  Spatial analysis of Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) in Austria.

Authors:  R Strauss; C Pfeifer; H Ulmer; V Mühlberger; K P Pfeiffer
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Does increased investment in coronary angiography and revascularisation reduce socioeconomic inequalities in utilisation?

Authors:  C J Manson-Siddle; M B Robinson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 3.  Ageism in cardiology.

Authors:  A Bowling
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-11-20

4.  Improving access needs a whole systems approach. And will be important in averting crises in the millennium winter.

Authors:  A Rogers; J Flowers; D Pencheon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-10-02

5.  Inequalities in access to coronary angiography and revascularisation: the association of deprivation and location of primary care services.

Authors:  J Hippisley-Cox; M Pringle
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Effective management of stable angina.

Authors:  M Petticrew; M Sculpher; J Kelland; R Elliott; D Holdright; M Buxton
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-06

Review 7.  Volume of clinical activity in hospitals and healthcare outcomes, costs, and patient access.

Authors:  A Sowden; V Aletras; M Place; N Rice; A Eastwood; R Grilli; B Ferguson; J Posnett; T Sheldon
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1997-06

8.  Angioplasty, bypass surgery or medical treatment: how should we decide?

Authors:  J P Pell; M A Denvir
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.994

9.  Equity in access to exercise tolerance testing, coronary angiography, and coronary artery bypass grafting by age, sex and clinical indications.

Authors:  A Bowling; M Bond; D McKee; M McClay; A P Banning; N Dudley; A Elder; A Martin; I Blackman
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.994

10.  Markers of access to and quality of primary care for aboriginal people in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Baiju R Shah; Nadia Gunraj; Janet E Hux
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.