The impact of changing the 4 h emergency access standard on patient waiting times in emergency departments in England. Issue 3 (19th April 2012)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Woodcock, Thomas; Poots, Alan J; Bell, Derek
• Is Part Of: Emergency medicine journal. Volume 30:Issue 3(2013)
• Page Start: e22
• Page End: e22
• Publication Date: 2012-04-19
• Subjects: Emergency department -- waiting times -- statistical process control -- statistics; Emergency medicine -- Periodicals; 616.02505
• DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201175
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1472-0205

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To determine whether the process of emergency care waiting in England has changed following the modification of the operational standard for the 4 h waiting time target from 98% to 95% in June 2010. Design: Retrospective analysis of publicly available 'total time spent in accident and emergency' data from Department of Health. Setting and participants: Patients attending emergency departments (EDs) in England between October 2002 and September 2011. In 2005, the government set an operational standard that 98% of patients should wait <4 h in ED. In June 2010, the government announced that the operating standard would change to 95% immediately. Outcome measures: Percentage of patients waiting <4 h (weekly and quarterly), and total number of patients waiting >4 h. Results: The average percentage of patients waiting <4 h fell from 98% to 95% almost immediately following the operational standard change. Consequently, between October 2010 and September 2011, approximately 383 000 additional patients in England EDs waited in excess of 4 h than had the 98% standard been attained. The emergency care system appears to have been stabilised at this new level. Conclusions: The policy change for waiting times in EDs in England has resulted in the process of emergency care in England adjusting to the new operational standard of 95% of patients waiting <4 h. As a result, more patients are waiting >4 h to receive the care they need; consequently, outcomes are likely to suffer.