To the Editor: Clark et al have claimed to map the distribution of services for people with chronic heart failure (CHF) against the distribution of these people.1 An examination will show that they have mapped the distribution of people likely to have CHF, using age and Aboriginality as surrogate markers. The stated mapping of the services shows the services probably available to these people.

A map is drawn to show us what the cartographer wants us to see.2 The authors note that high prevalence in remote regions has been shown on the maps, but they have not considered different mapping methods to provide a better representation of their results.3 This has led to an anomaly so that, when calculating numbers of people with CHF, the maps show remote areas with giant households containing between 24 and 300 people.

CHF programs were located by a snowball sampling technique, which by its nature will miss isolated examples. Isolation is a feature of rural and remote practice, so this method is biased to finding metropolitan examples. In my own rural practice in Griffith, I found a local program that had been operating in 2004 and a distance program run by a health fund, neither of which had been identified by Clark et al.

On the medical front, the authors asserted that access to a CHF management program is a mark of equity in health services. This is based on a metro-centric model looking at admission with CHF to a major teaching hospital, and showing that rates of readmission and death were reduced where a nurse and a pharmacist made a single visit to someone with CHF in their home after hospital discharge. The relevance of this activity to a rural person with a single community pharmacist who may make a home visit, a single point of contact with medical services in their general practitioner, and the possible availability of a community nurse to visit them regularly is unproven. Perhaps the city folk were copying the principles of the services we already had?

In reply: We thank Dodd for her commentary on our article.1 We concur with many of the highlighted issues relating to our suboptimal response to the burden and management of chronic heart failure (CHF) in rural and remote Australia. These include the lack of rigorous epidemiological data and lack of specialist services “beyond city limits”.

Unfortunately, we have limited space to respond fully. However, we re-emphasise that, although our previous estimates2 complement that of the Canberra Study,3 neither can replace an Australia-wide study of CHF that samples metropolitan, regional, rural and Indigenous communities. We also stand by (within the context of the stated limitations) the accuracy of our mapping of the CHF programs and the location of general practice services in Australia for the study period. Our geo-mapping approach and data have been well validated by the National Centre for Social Applications of Geographic Information Systems (GISCA).4 For example, Jenks’ (natural breaks) classification is used for all sociodemographic thematic mapping at GISCA. Overall, we identified only four CHF programs which were located in regional areas. Other rural programs were excluded as they did not meet our prespecified definition of a CHF program.

In summary, we acknowledge the need for better data to describe the burden of CHF throughout Australia. We also explicitly acknowledge the need for a less “metro-centric” approach to CHF service: perhaps by using remote monitoring techniques.5