OBJECTIVE: To assess ED length of stay (EDLOS), access block, inpatient length of stay (IPLOS) and waiting times before and after the implementation of the National Emergency Access Target (NEAT). METHODS: This was designed as a retrospective cohort study and data was collected from electronic patient management systems. The control group represented all emergency presentations between June 2011 and September 2011, 1 year prior to the introduction of NEAT. The study groups were assessed and included all ED presentations between June and September 2012 and 2013 respectively. Main outcome measures were waiting times, EDLOS, proportion of patients cleared from the ED within NEAT goals, hospital length of stay and hospital mortality rates. RESULTS: A cumulative total of 76 935 patients were included in the study. During the course of the study, clearance from the ED within NEAT targets rose from 49.0% to 53.2% [relative risk (RR) 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.11; P < 0.001]. ED waiting times decreased from 1.05 h [interquartile range (IQR), 0.43-2.27] to 0.45 h (IQR, 0.17-1.22) (P < 0.001) and time from bed-request to ward access increased. Utilisation of emergency short stay units (SSU) increased significantly across the study period from 6.5% to 13.4% (P < 0.001). Rates of inpatient transfers increased eightfold (RR, 7.93; 95% CI, 5.98-10.51; P < 0.001) and IPLOS increased by 21% from 2.05 (IQR, 0.75-4.96) to 2.50 days (IQR, 1.12-4.99) (P < 0.001). Hospital mortality remained unchanged from 3.0% to 3.3% (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.34; P = 0.311). CONCLUSIONS: At the current institution NEAT success has been guarded, likely secondary to availability of inpatient beds. The implementation of NEAT appears to have reduced emergency waiting times. These early results suggest concurrent a detrimental effect on IPLOS; however, some of this effect may be a result of a large increase in short stay admissions.
OBJECTIVE: To assess ED length of stay (EDLOS), access block, inpatient length of stay (IPLOS) and waiting times before and after the implementation of the National Emergency Access Target (NEAT). METHODS: This was designed as a retrospective cohort study and data was collected from electronic patient management systems. The control group represented all emergency presentations between June 2011 and September 2011, 1 year prior to the introduction of NEAT. The study groups were assessed and included all ED presentations between June and September 2012 and 2013 respectively. Main outcome measures were waiting times, EDLOS, proportion of patients cleared from the ED within NEAT goals, hospital length of stay and hospital mortality rates. RESULTS: A cumulative total of 76 935 patients were included in the study. During the course of the study, clearance from the ED within NEAT targets rose from 49.0% to 53.2% [relative risk (RR) 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.11; P < 0.001]. ED waiting times decreased from 1.05 h [interquartile range (IQR), 0.43-2.27] to 0.45 h (IQR, 0.17-1.22) (P < 0.001) and time from bed-request to ward access increased. Utilisation of emergency short stay units (SSU) increased significantly across the study period from 6.5% to 13.4% (P < 0.001). Rates of inpatient transfers increased eightfold (RR, 7.93; 95% CI, 5.98-10.51; P < 0.001) and IPLOS increased by 21% from 2.05 (IQR, 0.75-4.96) to 2.50 days (IQR, 1.12-4.99) (P < 0.001). Hospital mortality remained unchanged from 3.0% to 3.3% (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.34; P = 0.311). CONCLUSIONS: At the current institution NEAT success has been guarded, likely secondary to availability of inpatient beds. The implementation of NEAT appears to have reduced emergency waiting times. These early results suggest concurrent a detrimental effect on IPLOS; however, some of this effect may be a result of a large increase in short stay admissions.
Authors: Hanh Ngo; Roberto Forero; David Mountain; Daniel Fatovich; Wing Nicola Man; Peter Sprivulis; Mohammed Mohsin; Sam Toloo; Antonio Celenza; Gerard Fitzgerald; Sally McCarthy; Ken Hillman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tim Tenbensel; Linda Chalmers; Peter Jones; Sarah Appleton-Dyer; Lisa Walton; Shanthi Ameratunga Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marlon L Perera; Neiraja Gnaneswaran; Matthew J Roberts; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Peter Ritchie; Steven T F Chan Journal: Urol Ann Date: 2018 Apr-Jun
Authors: Julia Crilly; Amy Nb Johnston; Marianne Wallis; John O'Dwyer; Joshua Byrnes; Paul Scuffham; Ping Zhang; Emma Bosley; Wendy Chaboyer; David Green Journal: Emerg Med Australas Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 2.151