Evaluating the benefits of a rapid access chest pain clinic in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes and safety of a rapid access chest pain clinic (RACPC) in Australia with those of a general cardiology clinic. DESIGN: Prospective comparison of the outcomes for patients attending an RACPC and those of historical controls. SETTING: Royal Hobart Hospital cardiology outpatient department. PARTICIPANTS: 1914 patients referred for outpatient evaluation of new onset chest pain (1479 patients seen in the RACPC, 435 patients previously seen in the general cardiology clinic). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Service outcomes (review times, number of clinic reviews); adverse events (unplanned emergency department re-attendances at 30 days and 12 months; major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months, including unplanned revascularisation, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, cardiac death). RESULTS: Median time to review was shorter for RACPC than for usual care patients (12 days [IQR, 8-15 days] v 45 days [IQR, 27-89 days]). All patients seen in the RACPC received a diagnosis at the first clinic visit, but only 139 patients in the usual care group (32.0%). There were fewer unplanned emergency department re-attendances for patients in the RACPC group at 30 days (1.6% v 4.4%) and 12 months (5.7% v 12.9%) than in the control group. Major adverse cardiovascular events were less frequent among patients evaluated in the RACPC (0.2% v 1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were evaluated more efficiently in the RACPC than in a traditional cardiology clinic, and their subsequent rates of emergency department re-attendances and adverse cardiovascular events were lower.

Quality of end-of-life care for dementia patients during acute hospital admission: a retrospective study in Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the quality of end-of-life care received by patients with and without dementia on acute medical wards during their final hospitalization. METHODS: A retrospective clinical case note review of patients aged over 65 who had died on acute medical wards within a 6-month period in a general hospital in Dublin was conducted. Seventy-five multidisciplinary clinical notes were available for scrutiny in order to identify cognitive status, measure the frequency of invasive procedures undertaken and examine the quality of palliative care as benchmarked with the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) program. Comparison between patients with and without dementia was made. RESULTS: Eighteen (24.0%) subjects had dementia, 32 (42.7%) subjects were described as "cognitively intact" and 25 subjects did not have reference to cognitive status. Of the 50 patients with known cognitive status, 27 (54.0%) had had a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) conducted (10 dementia vs. 17 nondementia). Patients were equally subjected to invasive interventions regardless of their cognitive status. However, dementia patients were significantly less likely to be referred to palliative care interventions (P=.007), to be prescribed palliative drugs (P=.017) and to have carers involved in decision making (P=.006). CONCLUSION: Individuals with dementia may be receiving different end-of-life care from those without. The effective delivery of robust multidisciplinary frameworks for the palliation of symptoms of hospitalized dementia patients remains an important clinical goal.