Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16189033›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2005

Targets and moving goal posts: changes in waiting times in a UK emergency department.

T Locker, S Mason, J Wardrope, S Walters

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

T LockerSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. t.locker@sheffield.ac.uk
S Mason
J Wardrope
S Walters

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Waiting ListsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandHealth Services ResearchHospitalizationHumansMiddle AgedPatient DischargeRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID16189033
PMCPMC1726564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.