ABSTRACT
Older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) in rural communities have less access to cardiac specialty care. Telehealth offers a viable approach to provide cardiac care, yet little is known about patients' and providers' views on telehealth's potential to support rural patients with AF. This qualitative descriptive study examines patient and health providers' perspectives, an important first step in planning a telehealth initiative. Eight patients with AF, along with one partner from rural communities, were recruited through an urban-based AF clinic. Five providers were recruited through professional practice leads in the health region. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with both stakeholder groups. The overriding theme was variability in patient and provider receptiveness to telehealth. Receptiveness reflected differences in past experience with telehealth, in perceived adequacy of rural health services, and in perceived gaps in AF care. These are important considerations in planning effective and sustainable telehealth in rural communities.
Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation/therapy , Health Personnel/psychology , Rural Health Services , Stakeholder Participation/psychology , Telemedicine , Aged , Canada , Female , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Qualitative Research , TelephoneABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Cardiac arrest in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We examined the clinical characteristics, contemporary management patterns and outcomes of ACS patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events and the Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events enrolled 14,010 ACS patients in 1999-2008. We compared the clinical characteristics, in-hospital treatment and outcomes between patients with and without pre-hospital cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Overall, 206 (1.4%) patients had cardiac arrest prior to hospital presentation. ACS patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest were less frequently treated with aspirin, ß-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins within the first 24 h of presentation, but the use of cardiac procedures was similar compared to the group without cardiac arrest. Patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest had significantly higher rates of in-hospital adverse events. Factors independently associated with pre-hospital cardiac arrest included male gender, current smoker status, tachycardia, higher Killip class and ST-segment deviation. CONCLUSION: ACS patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest continue to have more in-hospital complications and higher mortality. Their use of evidence-based medical therapies was lower but the use of cardiac procedures was similar compared to the group without cardiac arrest. Better utilization of evidence-based therapies in these patients may translate into improved outcomes.
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome/complications , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Acute Coronary Syndrome/mortality , Adrenergic beta-Antagonists/therapeutic use , Aged , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Australasia/epidemiology , Canada/epidemiology , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , North America/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/mortality , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , Registries , South America/epidemiology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in the highest risk categories are least likely to receive evidence-based treatments (EBTs). We sought to determine why physicians do not prescribe EBTs for patients with non-ST-segment-elevation ACSs and the factors determining use of these treatments after 1 year. METHODS AND RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred fifty-six non-ST-segment-elevation ACS patients were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Canadian ACS registry II between October 2002 and December 2003. Each patient's physician gave reasons why guideline-indicated medication(s) was not prescribed during hospitalization. Medication use and reason(s) for discontinuation after 1 year were obtained by telephone interview of the patients. The commonest reason for not prescribing EBTs was "not high-enough risk" or "no evidence/guidelines to support use." However, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events scores of patients not treated for this reason were often similar to or higher than those of patients prescribed such treatment. After 1 year, 77% of patients not on optimal ACS treatment at discharge remained without optimal treatment, and overall antiplatelet, ß-blocker, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use declined. Approximately one third of patients not taking EBTs had stopped their medication without instruction from their doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Nonprovision of EBTs may be due to subjective underestimation of patient risk and hence, likely treatment benefit. Oversights in care delivery were also apparent. Objective risk stratification, combined with efforts to ensure provision and adherence to EBTs, should be encouraged.
