Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19938438›Full record

ArticleHealth care management science2009

Identifying the impact of government targets on waiting times in the NHS.

Sofia Dimakou, David Parkin, Nancy Devlin, John Appleby

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management science, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Autonomy and performance in the public sector: the experience of English NHS hospitals.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Sofia DimakouCity Health Economics Centre, Economics Department, The City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V OHB, UK.
David Parkin
Nancy Devlin
John Appleby

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Waiting times for elective surgery are a key issue for the NHS. The principal policy response in the English NHS has been to introduce maximum waiting time targets against which performance is measured and rewarded. The aim of this paper is to identify the effect of government targets on the distribution of waiting times in the NHS. Specifically, we investigate the following questions: How does the probability of admission for any given patient vary during the time that they wait? How is the probability of admission for any given waiting time affected by the targets? Can variations in waiting times be explained by clinical, patient, or provider-level characteristics? What implications may be drawn from our results with respect to providers' managerial responses to the targets? This paper investigates these questions by applying duration analysis techniques to waiting time data from 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 for three specialties: general surgery, trauma & orthopaedics and ophthalmology. Estimation of survival functions reveals considerable variations in waiting times between specialties, operative procedures and hospitals. Hazard rates vary over time and peaks in them-high probabilities of admission-coincide with targets and change when targets change. Amongst patient characteristics, whether they are NHS or private and whether they are day or inpatient cases both influence waiting times, but other characteristics such as age, sex and ethnicity do not.

Indexed as

Efficiency, OrganizationalWaiting ListsElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHospitals, PublicHumansMalePatient AdmissionState MedicineSurvival AnalysisTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

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.