Using quality indicators to compare outcomes of permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation among publicly and privately funded patients

Pamela Bradshaw, P. Stobie, Kristjana Einarsdóttir, Tom Briffa, Michael Hobbs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

© 2015 Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Background: Funding source/insurance status has been associated with disparity in the management and outcomes of cardiovascular disease, with poorer outcomes among disadvantaged groups. Aim: Using proposed quality indicators for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation and administrative data, this study aimed to determine whether quality indicator-based outcomes of PPM implantation were comparable for publicly and privately funded patients within Australia's two-tier health system. Methods: A population-based cohort study of adults implanted with a PPM between 1995 and 2009 in Western Australia. The association of funding outcomes derived from linked administrative data was tested in multivariate logistic regression models. Results: There were 9748 PPMs implanted, 48% being among privately funded patients. The mean age was 75 years for both public and private patients. Private patients had better health status (fewer with cardiac conditions and lower non-cardiac comorbidity scores), were less likely to be an emergency admission (33% vs 60%, P <0.001) and more likely to have dual- or triple-chamber pacing. Mean length of stay was significantly greater for private patients (4.3 (standard deviation 6.3) vs 5.1 (6.8) days
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)813-820
JournalInternal Medicine Journal
Volume45
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Using quality indicators to compare outcomes of permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation among publicly and privately funded patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this