• Coronary Artery Disease

To many, the 2-week ‘SNAPSHOT’ of patient care patterns across Australia and New Zealand1 will appear a picture of systems-wide failure. The results are likely to be of concern not only for the health professionals of these countries but also their general public, governments and media. Why, given the heavy weight of persuasive evidence supporting the best pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, was suboptimal cardiac care so dominant in the 2 weeks studied? Across two wealthy countries with well-financed health systems, how can optimal cardiac care be provided to only three out of four patients—and be even worse for those patients who are more prone to heart disease, notably older adults?

That large numbers of citizens may suffer unnecessarily due to poor and unequal cardiac care is not ethically or economically acceptable. Yet, whether and how the results reported by the research come to improve patient care will be determined less by the results themselves but by how people and their organisations choose to respond.