Key result
RACPCs are linked to favorable clinical outcomes, reduced ED reattendance, and cost-effectiveness.
Why the study?
Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics are widely used for outpatient assessment of chest pain, but high-quality evidence justifying this model of care is limited.
Do Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics improve clinical outcomes, resource utilisation, and patient satisfaction?
Systematic Review
Do Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics improve clinical outcomes, resource utilisation, and patient satisfaction?
While Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics appear to be safe, efficient, and associated with high patient satisfaction, the supporting evidence is of low quality and highly heterogeneous.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support adoption in chest pain pathways; leaves open definitive recommendations pending higher-quality randomized trials.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Black et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review in Chest pain. Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics (RACPC) vs. Non-RACPC controls was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events, emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics were associated with favorable clinical outcomes, reduced emergency department reattendance, and cost-effectiveness across 32 included studies.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: