IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i15-16p2211-2218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treatment targets in emergency departments: nurses’ views of how they affect clinical practice

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Hoyle
  • Aimee Grant

Abstract

Aims and objectives To understand nurses' views and experiences of four‐hour treatment targets in the emergency department and how this impacts clinical decision‐making throughout acute secondary care hospitals. Background In many countries, national treatment targets in the emergency department have been introduced. However, research and a recent enquiry into poor clinical care in one hospital in the UK have highlighted that patient care may be compromised by the need to meet these targets. Design Qualitative descriptive study as part of a case study approach. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 31 nurses working in UK secondary care hospitals which had an emergency department. Nurses were purposively sampled from three specialties: emergency arenas (emergency department, n = 5; medical assessment n = 4 surgical receiving n = 2) (n = 11), surgical wards (n = 11) and medical wards (n = 9). Results Nurses in emergency arenas reported considerable burden, in terms of a very high workload and pressure from senior staff to meet the target. Respondents reported that negative impact on patient care for the majority of patients, excluding the most sick, for whom emergency arena nurses reported that they ensured received appropriate treatment, regardless of breaching treatment targets. Around half of the nurses working outside emergency arenas felt pressure and amended their work practices to enable colleagues in emergency arenas to meet treatment targets. Conclusions Four‐hour targets were not viewed as clinically helpful by the majority of nurses, some of whom questioned their appropriateness for patient care. Relevance to clinical practice Policy makers and senior managers should consider the suitability of treatment targets in the emergency department, particularly in relation to working conditions for nurses and other health professionals and its potential for negative impacts on patient care. While targets remain in place, senior nurses and managers should support nurses who breach the target to provide optimum clinical care.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise Hoyle & Aimee Grant, 2015. "Treatment targets in emergency departments: nurses’ views of how they affect clinical practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(15-16), pages 2211-2218, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:15-16:p:2211-2218
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12835
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12835
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12835?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L. Mayhew & D. Smith, 2008. "Using queuing theory to analyse the Government’s 4-h completion time target in Accident and Emergency departments," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 11-21, March.
    2. Armstrong, David, 2002. "Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: the problem of changing doctors' behaviour," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(10), pages 1771-1777, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aimee Grant & Louise Hoyle, 2017. "Print media representations of UK Accident and Emergency treatment targets: Winter 2014–2015," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4425-4435, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    2. Xiang Zhong & Jie Song & Jingshan Li & Susan M. Ertl & Lauren Fiedler, 2016. "Design and analysis of gastroenterology (GI) clinic in Digestive Health Center of University of Wisconsin Health," Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 90-119, June.
    3. Higgins, Angela & Porter, Sam & O'Halloran, Peter, 2014. "General practitioners' management of the long-term sick role," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 52-60.
    4. Nigam, Amit, 2012. "Changing health care quality paradigms: The rise of clinical guidelines and quality measures in American medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1933-1937.
    5. Aimee Grant & Louise Hoyle, 2017. "Print media representations of UK Accident and Emergency treatment targets: Winter 2014–2015," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4425-4435, December.
    6. Andersen, Anders Reenberg & Nielsen, Bo Friis & Reinhardt, Line Blander & Stidsen, Thomas Riis, 2019. "Staff optimization for time-dependent acute patient flow," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 94-105.
    7. Wensing, Michel & Baker, Richard & Szecsenyi, Joachim & Grol, Richard AU -, 2004. "Impact of national health care systems on patient evaluations of general practice in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 353-357, June.
    8. John Martyn Chamberlain, 2010. "Portfolio-Based Performance Appraisal for Doctors: A Case of Paperwork Compliance," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(1), pages 68-76, February.
    9. Anthony C Waddimba & David C Mohr & Howard B Beckman & Mark M Meterko, 2020. "Physicians’ perceptions of autonomy support during transition to value-based reimbursement: A multi-center psychometric evaluation of six-item and three-item measures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-29, April.
    10. Nigam, Amit, 2013. "How institutional change and individual researchers helped advance clinical guidelines in American health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 16-22.
    11. Bourgain, Catherine & Pourtau, Lionel & Mazouni, Chafika & Bungener, Martine & Bonastre, et Julia, 2020. "Imperfect biomarkers for adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer with good prognosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    12. Amir Elalouf & Guy Wachtel, 2022. "Queueing Problems in Emergency Departments: A Review of Practical Approaches and Research Methodologies," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-46, March.
    13. Izady, Navid & Worthington, Dave, 2012. "Setting staffing requirements for time dependent queueing networks: The case of accident and emergency departments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 531-540.
    14. G Royston, 2009. "One hundred years of Operational Research in Health—UK 1948–2048," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 169-179, May.
    15. Kerr, Anne, 2009. "A problem shared...? Teamwork, autonomy and error in assisted conception," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1741-1749, December.
    16. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2016. "The doctor-patient relationship as a toolkit for uncertain clinical decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 108-115.
    17. MacIntosh, Robert & Beech, Nic & Martin, Graeme, 2012. "Dialogues and dialetics: Limits to clinician–manager interaction in healthcare organizations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 332-339.
    18. Perrotta, Manuela & Geampana, Alina, 2020. "The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    19. May, Carl & Rapley, Tim & Moreira, Tiago & Finch, Tracy & Heaven, Ben, 2006. "Technogovernance: Evidence, subjectivity, and the clinical encounter in primary care medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 1022-1030, February.
    20. Walshe, Catherine & Chew-Graham, Carolyn & Todd, Chris & Caress, Ann, 2008. "What influences referrals within community palliative care services? A qualitative case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 137-146, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:15-16:p:2211-2218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.