This systematic review sought to identify whether health care reforms led to improvement in the emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) and elective surgery (ES) access in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42015016343), and nine databases were searched for peer-reviewed, English-language reports published between 1994 and 2014. We also searched relevant “grey” literature and websites. Included studies were checked for cited and citing papers. Primary studies corresponding to national and provincial ED and ES reforms in the four countries were considered. Only studies from Australia and the United Kingdom were eventually included, as no studies from the other two countries met the inclusion criteria. The reviewers involved in the study extracted the data independently using standardized forms. Studies were assessed for quality, and a narrative synthesis approach was taken to analyze the extracted data. The introduction of health care reforms in the form of time-based ED and ES targets led to improvement in ED LOS and ES access. However, the introduction of targets resulted in unintended consequences, such as increased pressure on clinicians and, in certain instances, manipulation of performance data.
GullifordMFigueroa-MunozJMorganMet al.What does “access to health care” mean?J Heal Serv Res Policy2002; 7(3): 186–188.
2.
IOM. Access to Health Care in America, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.
3.
DuckettSJ. The Australian health care system: reform, repair or replace?Aust Heal Rev2008; 32(2): 322.
4.
BennettCC. A healthier future of all Australians: an overview of the final report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. Med J Aust2009; 191(7): 383–387.
5.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Wait Times for Priority Procedures in Canada, 2015, Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2015.
6.
BjorkmanJW. Health Sector reforms in comparative perspective. Clen Saude Coletiva2009; 14(3): 763–770.
BevanGHoodC. Have targets improved performance in the English NHS?BMJ Br Med J2006; 332(7538): 419–422.
9.
BevanGHoodC. What’s Measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Adm2006; 84(3): 517–538.
10.
McKeeMHealyJ. Hospitals in a Changing Europe, Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 2002.
11.
PartelK. Can We Improve the Health System With Performance Reporting?, Deakin, Australia: Australian Healthcare and Hospital Association, 2014.
12.
Shortt S. Waiting for Medical Services in Ontario: Clarifying the issues in a period of health reform. Ontario, Canada: Queen's University; 2000 (February).
13.
SicilianiLHurstJ. Tackling excessive waiting times for elective surgery: a comparative analysis of policies in 12 OECD countries. Health Pol2005; 72(2): 201–215.
14.
ArdaghM. How to achieve New Zealand’s shorter stays in emergency departments health target. N Z Med J2010; 123(1316): 1–9.
15.
Tenbensel T, Chalmers L, Willing E. Target practice : are targets more appropriate for some health policy problems than for others, and if so, why? International Conference on Public Policy, Grenoble; 2013. http://archives.ippapublicpolicy.org/IMG/pdf/panel_65_s2_tenbensel.pdf. Accessed 4 December 2015.
ChengILeeJMittmannNet al.Implementing wait-time reductions under Ontario government benchmarks (Pay-for-Results): a cluster randomized trial of the effect of a physician-nurse supplementary triage assistance team (MDRNSTAT) on emergency department patient wait times. BMC Emerg Med2013; 13: 17, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24207160. Accessed July 2015.
18.
PropperCSuttonMWhitnallCWindmeijerF. Did “targets and terror” reduce waiting times in England for hospital care?B E J Econom Anal Policy2008; 8(2): 3–32.
19.
SullivanCStaibAFloresJ. Aiming to be NEAT: safely improving and sustaining access to emergency care in a tertiary referral hospital. Aust Heal2014; 38(5): 564–574. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AH14083. Accessed 7 July 2017.
20.
AndersonTCatchloveB. Health and hospital reform in Australia—A local health district’s perspective. World Hosp Heal Serv2012; 48(23): 21–25.
21.
MohanJ. Accounts of the NHS reforms: macro-, meso- and micro-level perspectives. Sociol Health Illn1996; 18(5): 675–698.
22.
KelmanSFriedmanJN. 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 Theory2009; 19(4): 917–946.
23.
CameronPACookeM. Lessons from the 4-hour standard in England for Australia. Med J Aust2011; 194(11): 615.
24.
MccarthyS. ACEM position on a time-based access target in Australian and New Zealand EDs. Emerg Med Australas2010; 22(5): 379–383.
25.
ForeroRHillmanKMMcCarthySFatovichDMJosephAPRichardsonDB. Access block and ED overcrowding: short report. Emerg Med Australas2010; 22(2): 119–135.
26.
MountainD. Introduction of a 4-hour rule in Western Australian Emergency Departments. Emerg Med Australas2010; 22(5): 374–378.
COAG. The National Health Reform Agreement-National Partnership Agreement on Improving Public Hospital Services, Australia: COAG, 2011, pp. 56.
29.
Cheng I, Lee J, Mittmann N, et al. Implementing wait-time reductions under Ontario government benchmarks (Pay-for-Results): a Cluster Randomized Trial of the Effect of a Physician-Nurse Supplementary Triage Assistance team (MDRNSTAT) on emergency department patient wait times. BMC Emerg Med. 2013;13:17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24207160. Accessed 7 July 2017.
GeelhoedGCde KlerkNH. Emergency department overcrowding, mortality and the 4-hour rule in Western Australia. Med J Aust2012; 196(2): 122–126.
33.
MaumillLZicMEssonAAet al.The National Emergency Access Target (NEAT): can quality go with timeliness?Med J Aust2013; 198(3): 153–157.
34.
FreemanJ VCroftSCrossSYapCMasonS. The impact of the 4 h target on patient care and outcomes in the Emergency Department: an analysis of hospital incidence data. Emerg Med J2010; 27(12): 921–927.
35.
MasonSWeberEJCosterJFreemanJLockerT. Time patients spend in the emergency department: England’s 4-hour rule—A case of hitting the target but missing the point?Ann Emerg Med2012; 59(5): 341–349.
36.
WeberEJMasonSFreemanJ VCosterJ. Implications of England’s four-hour target for quality of care and resource use in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med2012; 60(6): 699–706.
37.
VezyridisPTimmonsS. National targets, process transformation and local consequences in an NHS emergency department (ED): a qualitative study. BMC Emerg Med2014; 14(1): 12, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-227X/14/12. Accessed 7 July 2017.
38.
van HeerdenPVBlottJAPinderMet al.Intensive care unit occupancy after introduction of the emergency department 4-hour discharge rule at a tertiary referral hospital in Western Australia. Crit Care Resusc2013; 15(4): 318–321.
39.
NashLTaceyMLiewDJonesCTruesdaleMRussellD. Impact of emergency access targets on admissions to general medicine: a retrospective cohort study. Intern Med J2013; 43(10): 1110–1116.
40.
DimakouSParkinDDevlinNApplebyJ. Identifying the impact of government targets on waiting times in the NHS. Health Care Manag Sci2009; 12(1): 1–10.
41.
ApplebyJBoyleSDevlinNHarleyMHarrisonAThorlbyR. Do English NHS waiting time targets distort treatment priorities in orthopaedic surgery?J Health Serv Res Policy2005; 10(3): 167–172.
42.
PropperCSuttonMWhitnallCWindmeijerF. Incentives and targets in hospital care: evidence from a natural experiment. J Public Econ2010; 94(3–4): 318–335.
HarrisonAJ. Hospitals in England: impact of the 1990 National Health Service reforms. Med Care1997; 35(10 Suppl): OS50–OS61.
45.
HamiltonBHBramley-harkerRE. The Impact of the NHS reforms on queues and the surgical outcomes in England: evidence from hip fracture patients. Econ J1999; 109(1996): 437–462.
46.
CooksonRLaudicellaM. Do the poor cost much more? The relationship between small area income deprivation and length of stay for elective hip replacement in the English NHS from 2001 to 2008. Soc Sci Med2011; 72(2): 173–184.
47.
WeberEJMasonSCarterAHewRL. Emptying the corridors of shame: organizational lessons from England’s 4-hour emergency throughput target. Ann Emerg Med2011; 57(2): 79–88.
48.
LockerTEMasonSM. Are these emergency department performance data real?Emerg Med J2006; 23(7): 558–559.
CHAI. Investigation into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom: Commisson for Health care Audit and Inspection, 2009.
51.
JonesPSchimanskiK. The four hour target to reduce emergency department “waiting time”: a systematic review of clinical outcomes. Emerg Med Australas2010; 22(5): 391–398.
52.
RichardsonDB. Emergency department targets: a watershed for outcomes research?Med J Aust2012; 196(2): 126–127.
53.
Anstey MH, Gildfind SP, Litvak E. Sleep faster! (Somebody else needs your blanket…). Aust Heal Rev. 2012;36(3):244–247. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935109. Accessed 7 July 2017.
54.
FungCHLimYMattkeSDambergCShekellePG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med2008; 148(2): 111–123. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=738899. Accessed November 2015.
55.
HauckKStreetA. Do targets matter? A comparison of English and Welsh national health priorities. Heal Econ2007; 16(3): 275–290.
56.
JamesB. Implementing practice guidelines through clinical quality improvement. Front Heal Serv Manag1993; 10(1): 3–37.
57.
SnowdenAKurnethVCarlsonAMcRaeJVettaE. Addressing health care disparities using public reporting. Am J Med Qual2012; 27(4): 275–281.
HafnerJWilliamsSKossRTschurtzBSchmalzSLoebJ. The perceived impact of public reporting hospital performance data: interviews with hospital staff. Int J Qual Heal Care2011; 23(6): 697–704.
60.
MannionRDaviesHT. Reporting health care performance: learning from the past, prospects for the future. J Eval Clin Pract2002; 8(2): 215–228.
61.
BarkerAMengersenKMortonA. What is the value of hospital mortality indicators, and are there ways to do better. Aust Heal Rev2012; 36(4): 374–377.
62.
WernerRAschD. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA2005; 293(10): 1239–1244.
