Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2024
Effectiveness of rapid access chest pain clinics: a systematic review of patient outcomes and resource utilisation.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Black James Andrew, Eaves Scott, Chapman Niamh, Campbell Julie, Bui Tan Van, Cho Kenneth, Chow Clara K, Sharman James E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics (RACPC) are widely used for the outpatient assessment of chest pain, but there appears to be limited high-quality evidence justifying this model of care. This study aimed to review the literature to determine the effectiveness of RACPCs.
METHODS: A systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of RACPCs was conducted to assess the quality of the evidence supporting this model. Outcomes related to effectiveness included major adverse cardiovascular events, emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Study quality was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool or the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies checklist, as appropriate.
RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were eligible for inclusion, including one randomised trial. Five analytical cohort studies were included, with three comparing outcomes against non-RACPC controls. Three qualitative studies were included. Most reports were descriptive. Findings were consistent with RACPCs being associated with favourable clinical outcomes, reduced emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and high patient satisfaction. However, there was significant heterogeneity in care models, and overall literature quality was low, with a high risk of publication bias.
CONCLUSION: While the literature suggests RACPCs are safe and efficient, the quality of the available evidence is limited. Further high-quality data from adequately controlled clinical trials or large scare registries are needed to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023417110.
METHODS: A systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of RACPCs was conducted to assess the quality of the evidence supporting this model. Outcomes related to effectiveness included major adverse cardiovascular events, emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Study quality was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool or the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies checklist, as appropriate.
RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were eligible for inclusion, including one randomised trial. Five analytical cohort studies were included, with three comparing outcomes against non-RACPC controls. Three qualitative studies were included. Most reports were descriptive. Findings were consistent with RACPCs being associated with favourable clinical outcomes, reduced emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and high patient satisfaction. However, there was significant heterogeneity in care models, and overall literature quality was low, with a high risk of publication bias.
CONCLUSION: While the literature suggests RACPCs are safe and efficient, the quality of the available evidence is limited. Further high-quality data from adequately controlled clinical trials or large scare registries are needed to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023417110.