Access to Cardiac Rehabilitation does not Equate to Attendance. (On Behalf of the Cardiac ARIA Project. Winner Nursing/Allied Health Professional Investigator Award)

Background/Aims Timely access to appropriate cardiac care is critical for optimizing positive outcomes after a cardiac event. Attendance at cardiac rehabilitation (CR) remains less than optimal (10%–30%). Our aim was to derive an objective, comparable, geographic measure reflecting access to cardiac services after a cardiac event in Australia. Methods An expert panel defined a single patient care pathway and a hierarchy of the minimum health services for CR and secondary prevention. Using geographic information systems a numeric/alpha index was modelled to describe access before and after a cardiac event. The aftercare phase was modelled into five alphabetical categories: from category A (access to medical service, pharmacy, CR, pathology within 1 h) to category E (no services available within 1 h). Results Approximately 96% or 19 million people lived within 1 h of the four basic services to support CR and secondary prevention, including 96% of older Australians and 75% of the indigenous population. Conversely, 14% (64,000) indigenous people resided in population locations that had poor access to health services that support CR after a cardiac event. Conclusion Results demonstrated that the majority of Australians had excellent ‘geographic’ access to services to support CR and secondary prevention. Therefore, it appears that it is not the distance to services that affects attendance. Our ‘geographic’ lens has identified that more research on socioeconomic, sociological or psychological aspects to attendance is needed.

Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis : the patient's perspective

OBJECTIVE: To determine the point at which differences in clinical assessment scores on physical ability, pain and overall condition are sufficiently large to correspond to a subjective perception of a meaningful difference from the perspective of the patient. METHODS: Forty patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis participated in an evening of clinical assessment and one-on-one conversations with each other regarding their arthritic condition. The assessments included tender and swollen joint counts, clinician and patient global assessments, participant assessment of pain and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) on physical ability. After each conversation, participants rated themselves relative to their conversational partner on physical ability, pain and overall condition. These subjective comparative ratings were compared to the differences of the individual clinical assessments. RESULTS: In total there were 120 conversations. Generally participants judged themselves as less disabled than others. They rated themselves as "somewhat better" than their conversation partner when they had a (mean) 7% better score on the HAQ, 6% less pain, and 9% better global assessment. In contrast, they rated themselves as "somewhat worse" when they had a (mean) 16% worse score on the HAQ, 16% more pain, and 29% worse global assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients view clinically important differences in an asymmetric manner. These results can provide guidance in interpreting results and planning clinical trials.