Hospital versus community-based phase III cardiac rehabilitation

AIM: to compare patient and staff perceptions of phase III cardiac rehabilitation delivered in a hospital versus community setting. METHOD: data were collected by semi-structured interviews with staff and patients. Patients and staff members were interviewed in one of two local leisure centres and in the cardiac unit at Leeds General Infirmary. Five patients who had previously attended a hospital-based phase III programme, four patients who attended a community-based programme, and four hospital and community staff members participated. Data were analysed using a content analysis technique based on the framework' approach. RESULTS: three patients admitted having negative expectations of the community-based phase III programme. Maintaining attendance is more challenging in the community; however, progression rates to phase IV were better. Differences between programmes were identified in adherence to sessions, type and number of staff present, and number of sessions provided each week. All patients found the sessions helped with their rehabilitation and all stated that they would recommend their programme to others. CONCLUSION: both community- and hospital-based rehabilitation programmes were seen as successful by both patients and staff. The emergence of the community programme has proven to be a valuable additional service for cardiac patients. However, if the future of phase III cardiac rehabilitation in Leeds is to be community-based, then specific issues such as exercise adherence will need to be addressed.