Explore the vast range of titles available.

Evaluates the first 10-year outcomes of the Rural Hospital Medicine Training Programme (RHMTP), established in 2008 to develop New Zealand’s rural hospital medical workforce. Explores the geographic spread of both graduates and trainees, the influence of undergraduate rural training exposure on subsequent rural career choice, and trainee experiences of the RHMTP. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

The agreement of clinical coding between rural and urban hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) is unknown, and data from comparable international health systems is scarce, dated or inconclusive. There is a reliance upon administrative datasets that store clinically coded information to complete numerous rural-urban health analyses, which inform health policy and resource allocation decisions. Anecdotally, clinical coding in NZ rural hospitals is often performed by clinicians or reception staff without formal coding training; in urban NZ hospitals this would usually be completed by formally trained clinical coders. This study aimed to determine whether discrepancies existed between the primary diagnosis codes assigned in the National Minimum Dataset (hospital events) (NMDS) of hospital discharges by NZ's publicly funded hospitals, for patients who underwent an interhospital transfer from a rural to an urban hospital. This was a retrospective observational study using the NMDS. NZ's publicly funded hospitals were classified into three categories: rural hospitals, hospitals in small urban centres and hospitals in large urban centres. Interhospital transfers were identified by bundling events in the NMDS into healthcare encounters. The primary diagnosis codes assigned at discharge from the rural hospital were compared against the codes assigned at discharge from the urban hospital, and corresponding diagnosis groups based on the WHO chapter definitions were assigned to each code. The number and percentage, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of encounters where there was discordance between primary diagnosis codes from the rural and urban hospitals were calculated. The study included 31,691 patients, from 54 publicly funded hospitals, who underwent an interhospital transfer from an NZ rural to an urban hospital between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019. There were discrepancies in 64.1% (95%CI 63.5-64.6%) of the primary diagnosis codes assigned between the rural and urban hospitals, and in 32.1% (95%CI 31.6-32.6%) of broader diagnosis groups. In both cases, higher discrepancies existed for transfers to hospitals in small urban centres compared to hospitals in large urban centres. The most frequently assigned diagnosis group at discharge from rural hospitals was the non-specific group 'other', constituting 24.4% of all diagnosis groups assigned by a rural hospital. For 4.8% of all healthcare encounters, a specific diagnosis group assigned on discharge from the rural hospital was subsequently changed to 'other' at the urban transfer hospital. This reassignment to 'other' following interhospital transfer occurred within every diagnosis group assigned at a rural hospital. Two-thirds of primary diagnosis codes and one-third of diagnosis groups were discordant after transfer from rural to urban hospitals in NZ. Further investigation is needed into why these discrepancies are occurring.

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.

ObjectivesUnlike comparable countries, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mortality is similar among patients who present to rural and urban hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). The aim of this study was to determine whether differences in ischaemic heart disease (IHD) deaths that occurred without a preceding hospital admission in rural and urban populations explained this finding.DesignRetrospective observational study using the National Mortality Collection (MORT) and National Minimum Dataset (NMDS) for hospital discharges datasets.SettingPeople in NZ who died from IHD were categorised based on their rural–urban status (U1 (major urban), U2 (large urban) and rural) using the Geographic Classification for Health and prioritised ethnicity (Māori—NZ’s Indigenous population and non-Māori).ParticipantsAll people 20+ years who died from IHD between July 2011 and December 2018.Primary and secondary outcomesThe outcome was the lack of a hospital admission preceding IHD death, identified by linking the NMDS with MORT. This was measured for the 30 days and 1 year prior to death and for all-cause and IHD hospitalisations separately.ResultsOf the 37 296 deaths, a similar percentage of rural and urban residents died without an all-cause (rural 63.2%, U2 60.8%, U1 62.8%) or IHD (rural 70.9%, U2 69.0%, U1 70.1%) admission in the preceding 30 days, or without an all-cause (rural 32.8%, U2 35.5%, U1 35.5%) or IHD (rural 52.7%, U2 52.6%, U1 51.9%) admission in the preceding year. Exceptions were deaths that occurred without a prior admission for rural non-Māori aged 55–64 (higher odds) and 75+ years (lower odds) compared with U1 non-Māori 55–64 and 75+ years, respectively, across all four outcome measures.ConclusionsThis study suggests that the lack of difference in ACS mortality for patients who present to NZ rural and urban hospitals is not explained by IHD death that occurred without a recent preceding hospital admission.

Introduction: There is considerable variation in the structure and resources of New Zealand (NZ) rural hospitals; however, these have not been recently quantified and their effects on healthcare outcomes are poorly understood. Importantly, there is no standardised description of each rural hospital’s catchment boundary and the characteristics of the population living within this area.Aim: To define and describe a catchment population for each of New Zealand’s rural hospitals.Methods: An exploratory approach to developing catchments was employed. Geographic Information Systems were used to develop drive-time-based geographic catchments, and administrative health data (National Minimum Data Set and Primary Health Organisation Data Set) informed service utilisation-based catchments. Catchments were defined at both the Statistical Area 2 (SA2) and domicile levels, and linked to census-based population data, the Geographic Classification for Health, and the area-level New Zealand Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (NZDep2018).Results: Our results highlight considerable heterogeneity in the size (max: 57 564, min: 5226) and characteristics of populations served by rural hospitals. Substantial differences in the age structure, ethnic composition, socio-economic profile, ‘remoteness’ and projected future populations, are noted.Discussion: In providing a standardised description of each rural hospital’s catchment boundary and its population characteristics, the considerable heterogeneity of the communities served by rural hospitals, both in size, rurality and socio-demographic characteristics, is highlighted. The findings provide a platform on which to build further research regarding NZ’s rural hospitals and inform the delivery of high-quality, cost-effective and equitable health care for people living in rural NZ.

INTRODUCTION: In New Zealand, critically ill patients who present to rural hospitals are typically treated, stabilised and transferred to facilities where more appropriate resources are available.AIM: The aim of this study was to describe patients who presented critically unwell and required retrieval from Thames Hospital in the Waikato region.METHODS: Notes were reviewed retrospectively for patients who were retrieved from Thames Hospital between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2020. Patients were excluded if they were retrieved from the offsite birthing centre or their notes were not available to the authors.RESULTS: During the study period, 56 patients were retrieved by intensive care teams based at Waikato, Starship or Auckland Hospitals. Patients had a median age of 57 years and most were female (60.7%). Māori patients were over-represented in the retrieval cohort compared with the population presenting to the emergency department (30.4% vs. 20.1%, P < 0.001). We found that 41% of patients presented after-hours when there was only one senior medical officer available on site and 70 procedures were performed, including rapid sequence induction, which was required by 19.6% of patients.DISCUSSION: This study describes a population of critically unwell patients who were retrieved from a rural hospital. The key finding is that nearly half of these patients presented after-hours when there was only one senior medical officer available on site. This doctor also has sole responsibility for all other patients in the hospital. We recommend that referral centres streamline the retrieval processes for rural hospitals.

Introduction: In Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) there is a knowledge gap regarding the place and contribution of rural hospitals in the health system. New Zealanders residing in rural areas have poorer health outcomes than those living in urban areas, and this is accentuated for Maori, the Indigenous people of the country. There is no current description of rural hospital services, no national policies and little published research regarding their role or value. Around 15% of New Zealanders rely on rural hospitals for health care. The purpose of this exploratory study was to understand national rural hospital leadership perspectives on the place of rural hospitals in the NZ health system. Methods: A qualitative exploratory study was undertaken. The leadership of each rural hospital and national rural stakeholder organisations were invited to participate in virtual semi-structured interviews. The interviews explored participants' views of the rural hospital context, the strengths and challenges they faced and how good rural hospital care might look. Thematic analysis was undertaken using a framework-guided rapid analysis method. Results: Twenty-seven semi-structured interviews were conducted by videoconference. Two broad themes were identified, as follows. Theme 1, 'Our place and our people', reflected the local, on-the-ground situation. Across a broad variety of rural hospitals, geographical distance from specialist health services and community connectedness were the common key influencers of a rural hospital's response. Local services were provided by small, adaptable teams across broad scopes and blurred primary-secondary care boundaries, with acute and inpatient care a key component. Rural hospitals acted as a conduit between community-based care and city-based secondary or tertiary hospital care. Theme 2, 'Our positioning in the wider health system', related to the external wider environment that rural hospitals worked within. Rural hospitals operating at the margins of the health system faced multiple challenges in trying to align with the urban-centric regulatory systems and processes they were dependent on. They described their position as being 'at the end of the dripline'. In contrast to their local connectedness, in the wider health system participants felt rural hospitals were undervalued and invisible. While the study found strengths and challenges common to all NZ rural hospitals, there were also variations between them. Conclusion: This study furthers understanding of the place of rural hospitals in the NZ healthcare system as seen through a national rural hospital lens. Rural hospitals are well placed to provide an integrative role in locality service provision, with many already long established in performing this role. However, context-specific national policy for rural hospitals is urgently needed to ensure their sustainability. Further research should be undertaken to understand the role of NZ rural hospitals in addressing healthcare inequities for those living in rural areas, particularly for Maori.

ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability, and additionally to preliminarily evaluate, the effectiveness and safety of an accelerated diagnostic chest pain pathway in rural general practice using point-of-care troponin to identify patients at low risk of acute myocardial infarction, avoiding unnecessary patient transfer to hospital and enabling early discharge home.DesignA prospective observational pilot evaluation.SettingTwelve rural general (family) practices in the Midlands region of New Zealand.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥18 years who presented acutely to rural general practice with suspected ischaemic chest pain for whom the doctor intended transfer to hospital for serial troponin measurement.Outcome measuresThe proportion of patients managed using the low-risk pathway without transfer to hospital and without 30-day major adverse cardiac event (MACE); pathway adherence; rate of 30-day MACE; patient satisfaction with care; and agreement between point-of-care and laboratory measured troponin concentrations.ResultsA total of 180 patients were assessed by the pathway. The pathway classified 111 patients (61.7%) as low-risk and all were managed in rural general practice with no 30-day MACE (0%, 95% CI 0.0% to 3.3%). Adherence to the low-risk pathway was 95.5% (106 out of 111). Of the 56 patients classified as non-low-risk and referred to hospital, 9 (16.1%) had a 30-day MACE. A further 13 non-low-risk patients were not transferred to hospital, with no events. The sensitivity of the pathway for 30-day MACE was 100.0% (95% CI 70.1% to 100%). Of low-risk patients, 94% reported good to excellent satisfaction with care. Good concordance was observed between point-of-care and duplicate laboratory measured troponin concentrations.ConclusionsThe use of an accelerated diagnostic chest pain pathway incorporating point-of-care troponin in a rural general practice setting was feasible and acceptable, with preliminary results suggesting that it may safely and effectively reduce the urgent transfer of low-risk patients to hospital.

Introduction: New Zealand health training institutions have an important role in supporting health workforce training programmes in the Pacific Region.Aim: To explore the experience of Pacific Island country-based doctors from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Samoa, studying in New Zealand’s University of Otago distance-taught Rural Postgraduate programme.Methods: Document analysis (16 documents) was undertaken. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with Pacific Island country-based students. Thematic analysis of the interviews was undertaken using the framework method. The two data sources were analysed separately, followed by a process to converge and corroborate findings.Results: For Pacific Island countries with no previous option for formal general practice training, access to a recognised academic programme represented a milestone. Immediate clinical relevance and applicability of a generalist medical curriculum with rural remote emphasis, delivered mainly at a distance, was identified as a major strength. Although technologies posed some issues, these were generally easily solved. The main challenges identified related to the provision of academic and other support. Traditional university support services and resources were campus focused and not always easily accessed by this group of students who cross educational pedagogies, health systems and national borders to study in a New Zealand programme. Study for individuals worked best when it was part of a recognised and supported Pacific in-country training pathway.Discussion: The University of Otago’s Rural Postgraduate programme is accessible, relevant and achievable for Pacific Island country-based doctors. The programme offers a partial solution for training in general practice for the Pacific region. Student experience could be improved by tailoring and strengthening support services and ensuring their effective delivery.

Introduction: The rural accelerated chest pain pathway (RACPP) has been shown to safely reduce the number of transfers to hospital for patients who present with chest pain to rural general practice.Aim: This study aimed to estimate the costs associated with assessing patients with low-risk chest pain using the RACPP in rural general practice compared with transporting such patients to a distant emergency department (ED).Methods: This was a retrospective cost minimisation analysis. All patients with low-risk chest pain that were assessed in New Zealand (NZ) rural general practice using the RACPP between 1 June 2018 and 31 December 2019 were asked to participate. The costs incurred by patients were determined by an online survey. Patients were also asked to estimate the costs if they would have been transferred to ED. System costs were obtained from the relevant healthcare organisations. The main outcome measure was the total cost for patients who present with low-risk chest pain.Results: In total, 15 patients (22.7% response rate) responded to the survey. Using the RACPP in general practice resulted in a median cost saving of NZ$1184 (95% CI: $1111 to $1468) compared with transferring the same patient to ED.Discussion: Although limited by low enrolment, this study suggests that there are significant savings if the RACPP is used to assess patients with low-risk chest pain in rural NZ general practice.