BackgroundPrevious studies undertaken in New Zealand using generic rurality classifications have concluded that life expectancy and age-standardised mortality rates are similar for urban and rural populations.MethodsAdministrative mortality (2014–2018) and census data (2013 and 2018) were used to estimate age-stratified sex-adjusted mortality rate ratios (aMRRs) for a range of mortality outcomes across the rural-urban spectrum (using major urban centres as the reference) for the total population and separately for Māori and non-Māori. Rural was defined according to the recently developed Geographic Classification for Health.ResultsMortality rates were higher overall in rural areas. This was most pronounced in the youngest age group (<30 years) in the most remote communities (eg, all-cause, amenable and injury-related aMRRs (95% CIs) were 2.1 (1.7 to 2.6), 2.5 (1.9 to 3.2) and 3.0 (2.3 to 3.9) respectively. The rural:urban differences attenuated markedly with increasing age; for some outcomes in those aged 75 years or more, estimated aMRRs were <1.0. Similar patterns were observed for Māori and non-Māori.ConclusionThis is the first time that a consistent pattern of higher mortality rates for rural populations has been observed in New Zealand. A purpose-built urban-rural classification and age stratification were important factors in unmasking these disparities.
Introduction.There is a gap in our knowledge of the place and contribution of rural hospitals in the New Zealand health system. There is no current description of rural hospital services, no national policies and little published research regarding their value. Aim. To explore rural hospital leader perspectives of the role of rural hospitals. Methods. An on-line survey of rural hospital leaders conducted to capture perspectives on areas including facility nomenclature; access and equity; funding and the health reforms. Results. Fifty-five rural hospital leaders representing 19/24 rural hospitals responded. 'Rural Hospital' was the most common term used to describe facilities with 80% of respondents indicating this as their preferred term. Other descriptive terms varied widely from primary through to secondary care. Respondents indicated that the loss of rural hospital in-patient beds would be unacceptable to communities (median 0, IQR 0, 1). Scores on questions about 'range of services' (median 7, IQR 6, 8), 'accessibility' (median 7, IQR 6, 8) and how rural hospitals were addressing health equity (median 6, IQR 5, 7) were variable. The process for allocating funds to rural hospitals was perceived as lacking transparency (median 3, IQR 2, 5). National strategy and 'local governance and control' were both rated as important (median 9, IQR 7, 10 and median 9, IQR, 8, 10) for a rural hospital's future. Discussion. By capturing a collective national rural hospital leadership voice, this study facilitates the understanding of the rural hospital concept. The findings inform subsequent research needed to gain a clearer picture of New Zealand rural hospital provision.
ObjectivesExamine the impact of two generic—urban–rural experimental profile (UREP) and urban accessibility (UA)—and one purposely built—geographic classification for health (GCH)—rurality classification systems on the identification of rural–urban health disparities in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ).DesignA comparative observational study.SettingNZ; the most recent 5 years of available data on mortality events (2013–2017), hospitalisations and non-admitted hospital patient events (both 2015–2019).ParticipantsNumerator data included deaths (n=156 521), hospitalisations (n=13 020 042) and selected non-admitted patient events (n=44 596 471) for the total NZ population during the study period. Annual denominators, by 5-year age group, sex, ethnicity (Māori, non-Māori) and rurality, were estimated from Census 2013 and Census 2018.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary measures were the unadjusted rural incidence rates for 17 health outcome and service utilisation indicators, using each rurality classification. Secondary measures were the age-sex-adjusted rural and urban incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the same indicators and rurality classifications.ResultsTotal population rural rates of all indicators examined were substantially higher using the GCH compared with the UREP, and for all except paediatric hospitalisations when the UA was applied. All-cause rural mortality rates using the GCH, UA and UREP were 82, 67 and 50 per 10 000 person-years, respectively. Rural–urban all-cause mortality IRRs were higher using the GCH (1.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.22), compared with the UA (0.92, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.94) and UREP (0.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.68). Age-sex-adjusted rural and urban IRRs were also higher using the GCH than the UREP for all outcomes, and higher than the UA for 13 of the 17 outcomes. A similar pattern was observed for Māori with higher rural rates for all outcomes using the GCH compared with the UREP, and 11 of the 17 outcomes using the UA. For Māori, rural–urban all-cause mortality IRRs for Māori were higher using the GCH (1.34, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.38), compared with the UA (1.23, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.27) and UREP (1.15, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.19).ConclusionsSubstantial variation in rural health outcome and service utilisation rates were identified with different classifications. Rural rates using the GCH are substantially higher than the UREP. Generic classifications substantially underestimated rural–urban mortality IRRs for the total and Māori populations.
INTRODUCTIONAccelerated diagnostic chest pain pathways are used widely in urban New Zealand hospitals. These pathways use laboratory-based troponin assays with good analytical precision. Widespread implementation has not occurred in many of New Zealand’s rural hospitals and general practices as they are reliant on point-of-care troponin assays, which are less sensitive and precise. An accelerated chest pain pathway using point-of-care troponin has been adapted for use in rural settings. A pilot study in a low-risk rural population showed no major adverse cardiac events at 30 days. A larger study is required to be confident that the pathway is safe. AIMSTo assess the safety and effectiveness of an accelerated chest pain pathway adapted for rural settings and general practice using point-of-care troponin to identify low-risk patients and allow early discharge. METHODSThis is a prospective observational study of an accelerated chest pain pathway using point-of-care troponin in rural hospitals and general practices in New Zealand. A total of 1000 patients, of whom we estimate 400 will be low risk, will be enrolled in the study. OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome is the proportion of patients identified by the pathway as low risk for a 30-day major adverse cardiac event. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of low-risk patients who were discharged directly from general practice or rural hospitals, the proportion of patients reclassified as having acute myocardial infarction by the pathway and the proportion of patients with low and intermediate risk safely managed in the rural hospital.
Aims Most rural hospitals and general practices in New Zealand (NZ) are reliant on point-of-care troponin. A rural accelerated chest pain pathway (RACPP), combining an electrocardiogram (ECG), a structured risk score (Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score), and serial point-of-care troponin, was designed for use in rural hospital and primary care settings across NZ. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the RACPP. Methods and results A prospective multi-centre evaluation following implementation of the RACPP was undertaken from 1 July 2018 to 31 December 2020 in rural hospitals, rural and urban general practices, and urgent care clinics. The primary outcome measure was the presence of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in low-risk patients. The secondary outcome was the percentage of patients classified as low-risk that avoided transfer or were eligible for early discharge. There were 1205 patients enrolled in the study. 132 patients were excluded. Of the 1073 patients included in the primary analysis, 474 (44.0%) patients were identified as low-risk. There were no [95% confidence interval (CI): 0–0.3%] MACE within 30 days of the presentation among low-risk patients. Most of these patients (91.8%) were discharged without admission to hospital. Almost all patients who presented to general practice (99%) and urgent care clinics (97.6%) were discharged to home directly. Conclusion The RACPP is safe and effective at excluding MACEs in NZ rural hospital and primary care settings, where it can identify a group of low-risk patients who can be safely discharged home without transfer to hospital.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.