快速胸痛门诊的有效性:对患者疗效和资源利用的系统回顾。

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Heart Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2024-324587
James Andrew Black, Scott Eaves, Niamh Chapman, Julie Campbell, Tan Van Bui, Kenneth Cho, Clara K Chow, James E Sharman
{"title":"快速胸痛门诊的有效性:对患者疗效和资源利用的系统回顾。","authors":"James Andrew Black, Scott Eaves, Niamh Chapman, Julie Campbell, Tan Van Bui, Kenneth Cho, Clara K Chow, James E Sharman","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2024-324587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023417110.</p>","PeriodicalId":12835,"journal":{"name":"Heart","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of rapid access chest pain clinics: a systematic review of patient outcomes and resource utilisation.\",\"authors\":\"James Andrew Black, Scott Eaves, Niamh Chapman, Julie Campbell, Tan Van Bui, Kenneth Cho, Clara K Chow, James E Sharman\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/heartjnl-2024-324587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023417110.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Heart\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Heart\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2024-324587\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2024-324587","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:快速胸痛门诊 (RACPC) 广泛用于胸痛的门诊评估,但证明这种护理模式合理的高质量证据似乎有限。本研究旨在回顾文献以确定 RACPCs 的有效性:对评估 RACPCs 效果的研究进行了系统性回顾,以评估支持这种模式的证据的质量。与有效性相关的结果包括主要不良心血管事件、急诊科复诊率、成本效益和患者满意度。研究质量根据情况采用RoB 2工具、纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估工具或定性研究报告综合标准清单进行评估:32 项研究符合纳入条件,其中包括一项随机试验。共纳入了五项队列分析研究,其中三项将结果与非 RACPC 对照进行了比较。另外还纳入了三项定性研究。大多数报告都是描述性的。研究结果一致表明,RACPC 与良好的临床效果、急诊科复诊率降低、成本效益和患者满意度高相关。然而,护理模式存在明显的异质性,文献总体质量较低,存在较高的发表偏倚风险:尽管文献表明 RACPCs 安全高效,但现有证据的质量有限。结论:虽然文献表明 RACPCs 是安全高效的,但现有证据的质量有限,需要从充分控制的临床试验或大型恐慌登记中获得更多高质量的数据,为医疗资源分配决策提供依据:CRD42023417110。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effectiveness of rapid access chest pain clinics: a systematic review of patient outcomes and resource utilisation.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Heart
Heart 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart is an international peer reviewed journal that keeps cardiologists up to date with important research advances in cardiovascular disease. New scientific developments are highlighted in editorials and put in context with concise review articles. There is one free Editor’s Choice article in each issue, with open access options available to authors for all articles. Education in Heart articles provide a comprehensive, continuously updated, cardiology curriculum.
期刊最新文献
Association of innate versus specific immunity with heart failure incidence: a prospective study. Automated oxygen administration versus manual control in acute cardiovascular care: a randomised controlled trial. Prevalence and relevance of H558R in the efficacy and toxicity of flecainide in patients with atrial fibrillation: a cohort study. Evolving use and clinical outcomes of coronary intravascular lithotripsy: insights from an international, multicentre registry. Diagnosis and management of resistant hypertension.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1