Impact of the Four‐Hour Rule/National Emergency Access Target policy implementation on emergency department staff: A qualitative perspective of emergency department management changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It has been 10 years since the ACEM Access Block Solutions Summit and 5 years since the introduction of the Four-Hour Rule/National Emergency Access Target (4HR/NEAT) policy. The impact of this policy on ED management and on ED staff has been poorly understood. The aim of the present study was to identify changes in ED management resulting from the policy based on ED staff experiences. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed, imported to NVivo 11 and analysed using a combination of content, thematic analysis and phenomenological focus within a theoretical framework known as the 'logic model'. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen ED staff participated in 2015-2016 to assess the impact of the policy implementation. Participants were drawn from 16 EDs in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Australian Capital Territory. In relation to ED management, three themes were identified: changes in ED management; activities and changes driven by the hospital in relation to 4HR/NEAT; and participant experiences in relation to policy compliance by staff. CONCLUSIONS: Policy implementation is a complex process that had both positive and negative consequences on how ED staff managed the implementation of the 4HR/NEAT policy and how it changed their work environment. Understanding the perceptions of staff involved in policy implementation has significance for the design of future implementation strategies. The biggest insight from the present study is that ED management is very complex and the policy generated multiple positive and negative changes demonstrating the wide range of processes involved in this area of health services research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".