Health policy/original researchTime Patients Spend in the Emergency Department: England's 4-Hour Rule—A Case of Hitting the Target but Missing the Point?
Introduction
In 2000, the National Health Service in England announced its intention to improve the quality of emergency department (ED) care by instituting a maximum length of ED stay of 4 hours.1 “By 2004 no-one should be waiting more than four hours in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. Average waiting times in accident and emergency will fall as a result to 75 minutes.”1 The “4-hour target” was meant to eliminate the problem of corridors lined with ill and injured patients waiting to be treated by a physician or be admitted to a hospital bed. Starting in 2004, the target was gradually implemented for an increasing proportion of patients, with the final threshold reached in January 2005. From that point on, 98% of all ED patients were to be treated and either discharged home or admitted to a ward within 4 hours. The leadership of the trust, not the ED, was considered ultimately responsible for meeting the target, and performance on the target was publicly reported. By 2008 to 2009, approximately 97% of patients left the ED within 4 hours, although the target was met at the 98% level in less than half of acute hospital trusts.2
The use of a specific time cutoff has been controversial, given that there was no empiric evidence for fixing the period at 4 hours. Whether a patient stays 2 hours or 3 hours and 59 minutes is equally rewarded, and once the patient “breaches,” their length of stay becomes irrelevant (to the target at least). This could result in some patients staying even longer than before, despite the clinical need to move to a bed. In 2004, Locker and Mason5 showed that after the introduction of the 4-hour target, a surprising proportion of patients appeared to leave the ED within or after the last 20 minutes before the cutoff. It is unknown whether United Kingdom hospitals have improved their processes over time to smooth this last-minute surge of activity.
Targets and performance measures are increasingly being used to ensure quality (and value for money), but they run the risk of unintended negative consequences such as gaming or cheating, effort substitution, or distortion of clinical priorities.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 The United Kindom was the first to set a throughput target for ED visits, but New Zealand and parts of Australia and Canada are trialing a similar target for their ED patients.15, 16, 17 ED crowding has long been recognized as a “crisis” in the United States, with documented adverse effects on the quality of care, yet no policies to address it have been forthcoming from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or The Joint Commission.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 However, in 2012 US hospitals will begin having to report on time patients spend in the ED, and pay for reporting will make this essentially mandatory from 2013 on.25, 26
We conducted an analysis of the change in distribution of time patients spend in the ED during the years before and after the target implementation. We focused on the effect the target has had on the time spent by the most vulnerable patients: the elderly and those admitted. We hypothesized that the target would have a disproportionate effect among patients with different levels of acuity.
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
The SAFETIME Study is a mixed-methods study of the effect that the imposed 4-hour target has had on hospital process, patient care, and staff attitudes in England. As part of this study, we conducted a retrospective analysis of routine data from ED visits in May and June for 2003 to 2006. The methods mirror those used in 2 related studies of the 4-hour target.5, 27 The years selected span the period from the introduction of the target to more than a year after its establishment at the 98%
Results
We analyzed 735,588 visits from 15 EDs (Table 1). Half of the visitors were men and approximately one fifth arrived at the ED by ambulance (Table 2). Of all ED visits, approximately one fifth of the patients were admitted to the hospital. Patient sex, age, and proportion arriving by ambulance were similar across the 4 years of the study.
The proportion of patients leaving the ED within 4 hours increased year to year from 83.9% to 96.3% between 2003 and 2006 (Table 2). Unadjusted median total
Limitations
This study is limited to 15 EDs in the United Kingdom. These were selected from an initial list of 35 acute hospital trusts that were known to have a range of performance against the target. The reduced number of EDs participating in this study highlights the difficulty that many acute hospital trusts have in supplying the volume of data we required for this analysis. However, because the trusts in the study represented a range of performance and type of hospital, we have no reason to suspect
Discussion
The existence of a time target in England focused attention on EDs and their patients. Many departments report receiving more resources to ensure meeting the target.3, 4 Traditional ways of working have been challenged and innovative strategies implemented.3 To achieve the target, acute National Health Service trusts were expected to adopt a whole-systems approach to improving their provision of emergency care. There is broad agreement from the specialty of emergency medicine that having a
References (44)
- et al.
Prolonged emergency department stays of non–ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients are associated with worse adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management and increased adverse events
Ann Emerg Med
(2007) - et al.
Emergency department crowding and thrombolysis delays in acute myocardial infarction
Ann Emerg Med
(2004) The NHS PlanA Plan for Investment. A Plan for Reform
(2000)Total time spent in A&E
- et al.
Effectiveness of measures to reduce emergency department waiting times: a natural experiment
Emerg Med J
(2006) Survey of A&E Waiting Times
(2003)- et al.
Analysis of the distribution of time that patients spend in emergency departments
BMJ
(2005) Have targets done more harm than good in the English NHS?No
BMJ
(2009)Have targets done more harm than good in the English NHS?Yes
BMJ
(2009)- et al.
Performance improvement and performance dysfunction: an empirical examination of distortionary impacts of the emergency room wait-time target in the English National Health Service
J Public Adm Res Theory
(2009)
Targets and moving goal posts: changes in waiting times in a UK emergency department
Emerg Med J
Are these emergency department performance data real?
Emerg Med J
Public reporting of antibiotic timing in patients with pneumonia: lessons from a flawed performance measure
Ann Intern Med
Do English NHS waiting time targets distort treatment priorities in orthopaedic surgery?
J Health Serv Res Policy
Incentives and Targets in Hospital Care: Evidence From a Natural Experiment
Reforming the UK emergency care system
Emerg Med J
Emergency room targets
A national health and hospitals network: further investments in Australia's health
Shorter stays in ED health target
Crisis in the emergency department
N Engl J Med
Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the emergency department to the intensive care unit
Crit Care Med
Effect of emergency department crowding on time to antibiotics in patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia
Ann Emerg Med
Cited by (120)
The Clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and related costs (COHERENT) model. Application in heart failure patients
2022, Revista Espanola de CardiologiaUnited States’ Performance on Emergency Department Throughput, 2006 to 2016
2021, Annals of Emergency MedicineCritical Care Delivery Solutions in the Emergency Department: Evolving Models in Caring for ICU Boarders
2020, Annals of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :An idealistic approach to crowding and prolonged ICU boarding would be to expedite the admission process such that ICU beds are ready and available for patients being admitted from the ED. Initiatives in the United Kingdom to admit patients to the hospital within 4 hours of ED presentation may have improved sepsis care, as observed in the Protocolised Management in Sepsis (PROMISE) and Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trials.22,23 Early ICU admission not only improves the processes of care but also contributes to diminishing mortality in high-risk patients.8,24-26
Spill Over Effects of Inpatient Bed Capacity on Accident and Emergency Performance in England
2020, Health PolicyCitation Excerpt :This target was reduced to 98% in 2004 to allow for clinical exceptions [11], and further reduced to 95% in 2010 due to concerns about its clinical justification [12]. Although A&E waiting times and patient satisfaction improved initially during this period [13,14], hospital performance has declined from 96.9% of patients seen on target in 2011-12, to 84.8% of patients in 2018-19 [15]. The NHS as a whole has not met the four-hour target since 2013, with one in every six patients attending A&E now waiting over four hours from arrival.
Association between adopting emergency department crowding interventions and emergency departments' core performance measures
2020, American Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Then we ran a logit model for each of five outcomes weighted by the propensity score that also includes patient and temporal variables (total of 100 models). Finally, to assess whether alternative definitions of a prolonged wait time, boarding time and length of stay could affect study findings, we ran a sensitivity analysis using other previously used cut off points (45 min for wait time [30], 240 min for boarding time [31], 240 min for length of stay for discharged patient [25,32], and 360 min for length of stay for admitted patients [27]). None of the sensitivity analyses results were significantly different from the results reported here.
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). This study was supported by grants from the BUPA Foundation, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (US), and the College of Emergency Medicine (UK). The study funders had no role in study design; collection, analysis, interpretation of the data; the writing of the article; or decision to submit the article for publication. EJW and SM are members of the 2 professional societies that provided partial support for this study. They have no other affiliations with the funders.
Please see page 342 for the Editor's Capsule Summary of this article.
Supervising editor: Donald M. Yealy, MD
Author contributions: All authors participated in revision of the article, had full access to all the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study, and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. SM and TL conceived the study. SM designed the study and supervised cleaning of data and statistical analysis. EJW was responsible for data collection. EJW, JC, JF, and TL participated in data interpretation. JC cleaned and analyzed data. JF performed statistical analysis. SM and JF participated in drafting of the article. SM takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Provide feedback on this article at the journal's Web site, www.annemergmed.com.
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com.
Publication date: Available online November 15, 2011.