Rural and Urban Differentials in Primary Care Management of Chronic Heart Failure: New Data from the CASE Study

Objective: To determine whether primary care management of chronic heart failure (CHF) differed between rural and urban areas in Australia.\ud \ud Design: A cross-sectional survey stratified by Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA) classification. The primary source of data was the Cardiac Awareness Survey and Evaluation (CASE) study.\ud \ud Setting: Secondary analysis of data obtained from 341 Australian general practitioners and 23 845 adults aged 60 years or more in 1998.\ud \ud Main outcome measures: CHF determined by criteria recommended by the World Health Organization, diagnostic practices, use of pharmacotherapy, and CHF-related hospital admissions in the 12 months before the study.\ud \ud Results: There was a significantly higher prevalence of CHF among general practice patients in large and small rural towns (16.1%) compared with capital city and metropolitan areas (12.4%) (P < 0.001). Echocardiography was used less often for diagnosis in rural towns compared with metropolitan areas (52.0% v 67.3%, P < 0.001). Rates of specialist referral were also significantly lower in rural towns than in metropolitan areas (59.1% v 69.6%, P < 0.001), as were prescribing rates of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (51.4% v 60.1%, P < 0.001). There was no geographical variation in prescribing rates of β-blockers (12.6% [rural] v 11.8% [metropolitan], P = 0.32). Overall, few survey participants received recommended “evidence-based practice” diagnosis and management for CHF (metropolitan, 4.6%; rural, 3.9%; and remote areas, 3.7%).\ud \ud Conclusions: This study found a higher prevalence of CHF, and significantly lower use of recommended diagnostic methods and pharmacological treatment among patients in rural areas