Effectiveness of rapid access chest pain clinics: a systematic review of patient outcomes and resource utilisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics (RACPC) are widely used for the outpatient assessment of chest pain, but there appears to be limited high-quality evidence justifying this model of care. This study aimed to review the literature to determine the effectiveness of RACPCs. METHODS: A systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of RACPCs was conducted to assess the quality of the evidence supporting this model. Outcomes related to effectiveness included major adverse cardiovascular events, emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Study quality was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool or the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies checklist, as appropriate. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were eligible for inclusion, including one randomised trial. Five analytical cohort studies were included, with three comparing outcomes against non-RACPC controls. Three qualitative studies were included. Most reports were descriptive. Findings were consistent with RACPCs being associated with favourable clinical outcomes, reduced emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and high patient satisfaction. However, there was significant heterogeneity in care models, and overall literature quality was low, with a high risk of publication bias. CONCLUSION: While the literature suggests RACPCs are safe and efficient, the quality of the available evidence is limited. Further high-quality data from adequately controlled clinical trials or large scare registries are needed to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023417110.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".