Skip to main content
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
letter
. 2025 Dec 16;76(762):12. doi: 10.3399/bjgp26X743865

Optimising post-acute coronary syndrome care: the case for a structured 14-day check

Angad Singh 1,*
PMCID: PMC13044210  PMID: 41478635

We read with interest the review by Rai et al on managing post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in primary care. 1 The authors correctly highlighted the critical failure in the current system as evidenced by the high 30-day readmission rate for post-ACS patients. This is correctly attributable to the ‘disjointed’ transition from hospital to primary care and the ‘underutilisation’ of key interventions such as cardiac rehabilitation.

We suggest a formal, structured, and incentivised primary care review for all post-ACS patients within 14 days of discharge. It is well known that this immediate post-discharge period carries the highest risk of complications, non-adherence, and preventable readmission.

This ‘post-ACS check’, which is analogous to the 6-week postnatal check, can therefore be the first real-world opportunity to (a) screen for aforementioned red flags and confirm adherence to secondary prevention medications; and (b) address the well-known psychological concerns related to a significant cardiac event and promote health literacy, including a targeted lipid intervention, side-effect discussions, and support for engagement with cardiac rehabilitation programmes.

This is not about creating added work but about smarter, more proactive care. A single structured review (perhaps added to the Quality and Outcomes Framework) would prevent the multiple reactive appointments, A&E attendances, and preventable readmissions that our current passive system guarantees.

References

  • 1.Rai A, Penumaka R, Jhala M, et al. Optimising primary care management of patients following acute coronary syndrome. Br J Gen Pract. 2025 doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2025.0403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES