4.6 Article

Cardiac rehabilitation referral and enrolment across an academic health sciences centre with eReferral and peer navigation: a randomised controlled pilot trial

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010214

Keywords

Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Health Services Research; Referral; Patient Navigation

Funding

  1. Stony Brook University, Office of the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To describe (1) cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral across cardiac units in a tertiary centre with eReferral; (2) characteristics associated with CR referral and enrolment and (3) the effects of peer navigation (PN) on referral and enrolment. This pilot was a 2 parallel-arm, randomised, single-blind trial with allocation concealment. Setting 3 cardiac units (ie, interventional, general cardiology, and cardiac surgery) in 1 of 2 hospitals of a tertiary centre. Participants CR-eligible adult cardiac inpatients were randomised to PN or usual care. 94 (54.7%) patients consented, of which 46 (48.9%) were randomised to PN. Outcomes were ascertained in 76 (80.9%) participants. Intervention The PN (1) visited participant at the bedside, (2) mailed a card to participant's home reminding about CR and (3) called participant 2weeks postdischarge to discuss CR barriers. Outcome measures The primary outcome of enrolment was defined as participant attendance at a scheduled CR intake appointment (yes/no). The secondary outcome was referral. Blinded outcome assessment was conducted 12weeks postdischarge, via CR chart extraction. Results Those who received care on the cardiac surgery unit (77.9%) were more likely to be referred than those treated on the general cardiology (61.1%) or interventional unit (33.3%; p=0.04). Patients who had cardiac surgery, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia were significantly more likely, and those with congenital heart disease, cancer and a previous cardiac diagnosis were less likely to be referred. Participants referred to a site closer to home (76.2% of those referred) were more likely to enrol than those not (23.7%, p<0.05). PN had no effect on referral (77.6%, p=0.45) or enrolment (46.0%, p=0.24). Conclusions There is wide variability in CR referral, even within academic centres, and despite eReferral. Referral was quite high, and thus, PN did not improve CR utilisation. Results support triaging patients to the CR programme closest to their home. Trial registration number NCT02204449; Results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available