A Study of Patient Satisfaction and Uncertainty in a Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinic

Improving Communication with Patients Discharged from the Emergency Department with Noncardiac Chest Pain: A Scoping Review with Narrative Synthesis

“…In emergency department, assessment of patients complaining of chest pain should be initiated in a timely manner in quiet places to preserve the privacy and confidentiality of the patient [ 41 ]. Recent studies have shown that timely access to specialist cardiology assessment improved quality of healthcare services, experiences, and satisfaction of patients with chest pain [ 8 ]. In general, patients were discharged with high level of satisfaction with the quality of care provided, comfort, communication, engagement, and minimal uncertainty in the diagnosis.…”

“…Healthcare providers should provide the patients/attendants with complete information on the examinations performed and the diagnoses made. This could contribute to improving patient experiences and satisfaction [ 8 ]. The patients/attendants should be informed with the potential cause of their chest pain and the course of the disease with the potential complications.…”

“…Improving quality of care, patient experiences, and patient satisfaction are high priorities in all healthcare settings [8,9]. Improving communication between patients and their healthcare providers is crucial in improving the quality of care [10][11][12].…”

Rapid access chest pain clinics in Australia and New Zealand

“…One study ( n = 328) noted that 93% of patients “strongly agreed” that RACC services were useful to their community, 91% “strongly agreed” that they were comfortable with their management plan, 86% “strongly agreed” that they felt less anxious about their condition following RACC attendance, and less than 1.5% had negative responses to the RACC 2 . A separate study ( n = 190) reported that 82% of respondents were happy with the decision to be discharged from the ED, and only 5% were dissatisfied with the follow‐up time to the clinic 19 . Most respondents had positive experiences related to the RACC, including 95% being very satisfied with the respect from health professionals in the clinic, and 76% strongly agreeing with having adequate explanation of their test results 19 .…”

“…Most patients were seen within one to 12 days, 2,6,13,14,17,23 although one study had a median waiting time of 18 days (interquartile range, 14–21 days) 21 . A variety of investigations were performed in the different clinics depending on local resources and expertise, including exercise stress testing (clinics ranged in their use between 30% and 93% of patients), computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA; 8–67%), stress echocardiography (12–60%), and nuclear myocardial perfusion scans (9–27%), with invasive angiogram performed as the first investigation in only up to 4% of patients 2,6,13,14,19,21,23 . Following non‐invasive investigations, 5–7% of RACC patients had subsequent invasive angiography, with 2–4% requiring revascularisation 2,6,13,14,19,21,23 .…”