ArticleBMC health services research2017
New Zealand's emergency department target - did it reduce ED length of stay, and if so, how and when?
Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acute assessment services for patient flow assistance in hospital emergency departments.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Emergency department crowding: A systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Length of Stay in Emergency Department by ICD-10 Specific and Non-Specific Diagnoses: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Impact of the 24-hour time target policy for emergency departments in South Korea: a mixed method study in a single medical center.BMC health services research · 2022Observational
- Operations management solutions to improve ED patient flows: evidence from the Italian NHS.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Understanding geographical variations in health system performance: a population-based study on preventable childhood hospitalisations.BMJ open · 2022Observational
- Pre- and Post-Implementation of One-Hour Rule for the Boarding of Referral of Critically Ill Patients in the Emergency Department.Journal of acute medicine · 2021Article
- If Gaming is the Problem, Is "Complexity Thinking" the Answer? A Response to the Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2021Article
- If I were minister for health, I would … review the four-hour waiting time in the emergency department.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2021Article
- Games People Play: Lessons on Performance Measure Gaming from New Zealand Comment on "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 · 2021Article
- 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
- Admission Decisions Made by Emergency Physicians Can Reduce the Emergency Department Length of Stay for Medical Patients.Emergency medicine international · 2020Article
- The impact of Australian healthcare reforms on emergency department time-based process outcomes: An interrupted time series study.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2009, the New Zealand government introduced a hospital emergency department (ED) target - 95% of patients seen, treated or discharged within 6 h - in order to alleviate crowding in public hospital EDs. While these targets were largely met by 2012, research suggests that such targets can be met without corresponding overall reductions in ED length-of-stay (LOS). Our research explores whether the NZ ED time target actually reduced ED LOS, and if so, how and when.
methodsWe adopted a mixed-methods approach with integration of data sources. After selecting four hospitals as case study sites, we collected all ED utilisation data for the period 2006 to 2012. ED LOS data was derived in two forms-reported ED LOS, and total ED LOS - which included time spent in short-stay units. This data was used to identify changes in the length of ED stay, and describe the timing of these changes to these indicators. Sixty-eight semi-structured interviews and two surveys of hospital clinicians and managers were conducted between 2011 and 2013. This data was then explored to identify factors that could account for ED LOS changes and their timing.
resultsReported ED LOS reduced in all sites after the introduction of the target, and continued to reduce in 2011 and 2012. However, total ED LOS only decreased from 2008 to 2010, and did not reduce further in any hospital. Increased use of short-stay units largely accounted for these differences. Interview and survey data showed changes to improve patient flow were introduced in the early implementation period, whereas increased ED resources, better information systems to monitor target performance, and leadership and social marketing strategies mainly took throughout 2011 and 2012 when total ED LOS was not reducing.
conclusionsWhile the ED target clearly stimulated improvements in patient flow, our analysis also questions the value of ED targets as a long term approach. Increased use of short-stay units suggests that the target became less effective in 'standing for' improved timeliness of hospital care in response to increasing acute demand. As such, the overall challenges in managing demand for acute and urgent care in New Zealand hospitals remain.
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.