Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28950856›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

New Zealand's emergency department target - did it reduce ED length of stay, and if so, how and when?

Tim Tenbensel, Linda Chalmers, Peter Jones, Sarah Appleton-Dyer, Lisa Walton, Shanthi Ameratunga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Tim TenbenselHealth Systems, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag, 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. t.tenbensel@auckland.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7832-3318
Linda ChalmersNursing Development Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Private Bag 92024, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Peter JonesAdult Emergency Department, Auckland City Hospital, Private Bag 92024, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Sarah Appleton-DyerHealth Systems, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag, 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Lisa WaltonHealth Systems, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag, 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Shanthi AmeratungaEpidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag, 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CommunicationEmergency Service, HospitalHumansInterviews as TopicLeadershipLength of StayNew ZealandPatient DischargeCrowdingHospital emergency departmentsMixed methodsNew ZealandPatient flowShort-stay unitsTargets

Identifiers

PMID28950856
PMCPMC5615466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.