ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2005
Targets and moving goal posts: changes in waiting times in a UK emergency department.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of an early attention strategy to reduce emergency room overcrowding in an academic institution in Colombia, a pilot study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Gaming New Zealand's Emergency Department Target: How and Why Did It Vary Over Time and Between Organisations?International journal of health policy and management · 2020Article
- New Zealand's emergency department target - did it reduce ED length of stay, and if so, how and when?BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Emergency department crowding: time for interventions and policy evaluations.Emergency medicine international · 2012Article
- Association between waiting times and short term mortality and hospital admission after departure from emergency department: population based cohort study from Ontario, Canada.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Article
- Has the assessment of isolated ankle injuries altered since 1993?Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe changes in the case mix, demographics, waiting times (WTs; time from arrival in the emergency department (ED) until seen by a clinician) and treatment times (TTs; time from seeing a clinician until leaving the ED) of adult patients presenting to the EDs in Sheffield, UK, between 1993 and 2003.
designA retrospective analysis of routinely collected data.
resultsOf a total of 252,156 patients included in the study, the proportion of attendees aged 16-29 years decreased from 38.7% in 1993 to 28.8% in 2003 (rate of change (b) = -1.10% per year, 95% CI -1.20% to -0.82%, p < 0.001) whereas the proportion aged 80-99 years increased from 6.2% to 10.4% (b = 0.37% per year, 95% CI 0.29% to 0.45%, p < 0.001). The proportion of "minors" (patients not arriving by ambulance and subsequently discharged) fell from 71.1% in 1993 to 60.8% in 2003 (b = -1.04% per year, 95% CI -1.36% to -0.73%, p < 0.001). WTs increased from a median of 21 minutes in 1993 to 48 minutes in 2003 (b = 3.5 min per year, 95% CI 2.23 min to 4.77 min, p < 0.001). The median TT for minors was unchanged but that for majors (patients arriving by ambulance and admitted to hospital from the ED) increased from 55 to 205 minutes (b = 11.55 min per year, 95% CI 6.54 min to 16.55 mins, p = 0.01).
conclusionThe demographics, case mix, and waiting times of patients presenting to EDs in Sheffield changed considerably over an 11 year period. There is evidence that the service for minor case patients improved slightly at the end of the period studied, but this is possibly at the expense of a deteriorating experience for major case patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.