Background: At Middlemore Hospital, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients are admitted under the care of one of seven cardiologists working on a weekly rotation. Between 2010 and 2018 patients under the care of three of the cardiologists were followed up in a "medical only" post-ACS follow-up clinic model where the cardiologist or registrar saw all patients. Those admitted under the other four cardiologists were seen in a "nurse-led, cardiologist-supported" follow-up model where the majority of patients were seen by a nurse specialist. The study aim was to compare quality of care and outcomes between patients managed under these two follow-up clinic models.
Method: The ANZACS-QI registry was used to identify all ACS admissions, 2010 to 2018. The ANZACS-QI records for 5296 patients, discharged alive, were anonymously linked with hospital clinic follow-up and national administrative datasets. Time to follow-up, medication dispensation and titration and one-year clinical outcomes were compared for the two follow-up models.
Results: Characteristics of patients managed under each model were similar. 4395 patients attended follow up, 74% in the nurse-led model. At one year there were no differences between the medical- and nurse-led cohorts in all-cause mortality (4.6% vs 3.9, p=0.29), rehospitalisations for myocardial infarction (MI) (9.2% vs 8.3%, p=0.31), stroke (1.2% vs 1.4% p=0.71), heart failure (5.7% vs 6.9%, p=0.15) or a combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and/or rehospitalisation for MI/stroke/HF (15.2% vs 14.8%, p=0.71). Patients were seen earlier post-discharge in the nurse-led model, (mean 83 vs 101 days). Medication dispensation one year post-discharge was similar for both models of care.
Conclusion: The nurse-led model is associated with earlier access to follow-up, was equally as effective at maintaining secondary prevention pharmacotherapy and associated with similar survival and readmission with non-fatal ACS/stroke/heart failure.
© PMA.