The “4-hour target”: emergency nurses’ views
Objective: To explore nurses’ views and to identify the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the “4-hour target” Methods: The study was based in one emergency department (ED) in the UK and took a generic qualitative approach. A stratified sample of nine experienced ED nurses were recruited for...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Emergency medicine journal : EMJ 2007-06, Vol.24 (6), p.402-404 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 404 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 402 |
| container_title | Emergency medicine journal : EMJ |
| container_volume | 24 |
| creator | Mortimore, Andy Cooper, Simon |
| description | Objective: To explore nurses’ views and to identify the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the “4-hour target” Methods: The study was based in one emergency department (ED) in the UK and took a generic qualitative approach. A stratified sample of nine experienced ED nurses were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed using the framework analysis1,2 approach. Results: The 4-hour target was considered an overall success in reducing waiting times and increasing patient satisfaction. However, staff expressed concerns over the imposed nature of the target, workload pressures, quality of care, and the level of support from secondary and primary care. Conclusion: Although deemed an overall success, there were reservations as to the target’s sustainability. Recommendations are made for improved communication between primary and secondary care and establishing the target as a shared goal within the hospital environment. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/emj.2006.044933 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2658273</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4017971491</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b524t-bf6aa7a793282a23eccb8238eef86b779b9f6431db250082cfa88c937c965f813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxiMEoqVw5oYiIYGElO3YY8cOByRYAYu0BQkVrpbjTrpZNkmxk0Jv-xpI7cvtk-BVVsufA5w80vz8fTPzJclDBhPGMD-mZjnhAPkEhCgQbyWHTCieAWd4e1-DPEjuhbAEYLIQ-m5ywJRkKFEeJvx0QelmfS2yRTf4tLf-nPrN-uZ5Sg3FunVXaTv4QGGz_pFe1vQt3E_uVHYV6MHuPUo-vXl9Op1l8w9v301fzrNSctFnZZVbq6wqkGtuOZJzpeaoiSqdl0oVZVHlAtlZySWA5q6yWrsClStyWWmGR8mLUfdiKBs6c9T23q7Mha8b669MZ2vzZ6etF-a8uzQ8l5orjAJPdwK--zpQ6E1TB0erlW2pG4JR0R6BCx3JJ_8mQSKA2M70-C9wGc_WxjMYpjQAKCx4pI5HyvkuBE_VfmgGZpubibmZbW5mzC3-ePT7rr_4XVARyEagDj193_et_2JyhUqa95-n5tV8ejI7wY9mFvlnI19Gp_-5_wQnA7Ec</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1780007392</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The “4-hour target”: emergency nurses’ views</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Mortimore, Andy ; Cooper, Simon</creator><creatorcontrib>Mortimore, Andy ; Cooper, Simon</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To explore nurses’ views and to identify the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the “4-hour target” Methods: The study was based in one emergency department (ED) in the UK and took a generic qualitative approach. A stratified sample of nine experienced ED nurses were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed using the framework analysis1,2 approach. Results: The 4-hour target was considered an overall success in reducing waiting times and increasing patient satisfaction. However, staff expressed concerns over the imposed nature of the target, workload pressures, quality of care, and the level of support from secondary and primary care. Conclusion: Although deemed an overall success, there were reservations as to the target’s sustainability. Recommendations are made for improved communication between primary and secondary care and establishing the target as a shared goal within the hospital environment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-0205</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-0213</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/emj.2006.044933</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17513535</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident & Emergency Medicine</publisher><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel ; BMA ; British Medical Association ; communication ; Department of Health ; Departments ; emergency ; emergency department ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency Nursing - methods ; Emergency Service, Hospital - standards ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; general practitioner ; Guidelines as Topic ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Nurse-Patient Relations ; Nurses ; Original ; Patient satisfaction ; Physicians ; Pragmatism ; Professional Practice - organization & administration ; quality ; Researchers ; Studies ; targets ; Triage - methods ; United Kingdom ; Waiting Lists ; waiting times ; Workload</subject><ispartof>Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2007-06, Vol.24 (6), p.402-404</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 by the Emergency Medicine Journal</rights><rights>Copyright: 2007 Copyright 2007 by the Emergency Medicine Journal</rights><rights>Copyright ©2007 Emergency Medicine Journal.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b524t-bf6aa7a793282a23eccb8238eef86b779b9f6431db250082cfa88c937c965f813</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://emj.bmj.com/content/24/6/402.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://emj.bmj.com/content/24/6/402.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,230,314,727,780,784,885,3194,23569,27922,27923,53789,53791,77370,77401</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513535$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mortimore, Andy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooper, Simon</creatorcontrib><title>The “4-hour target”: emergency nurses’ views</title><title>Emergency medicine journal : EMJ</title><addtitle>Emerg Med J</addtitle><description>Objective: To explore nurses’ views and to identify the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the “4-hour target” Methods: The study was based in one emergency department (ED) in the UK and took a generic qualitative approach. A stratified sample of nine experienced ED nurses were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed using the framework analysis1,2 approach. Results: The 4-hour target was considered an overall success in reducing waiting times and increasing patient satisfaction. However, staff expressed concerns over the imposed nature of the target, workload pressures, quality of care, and the level of support from secondary and primary care. Conclusion: Although deemed an overall success, there were reservations as to the target’s sustainability. Recommendations are made for improved communication between primary and secondary care and establishing the target as a shared goal within the hospital environment.</description><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>BMA</subject><subject>British Medical Association</subject><subject>communication</subject><subject>Department of Health</subject><subject>Departments</subject><subject>emergency</subject><subject>emergency department</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency Nursing - methods</subject><subject>Emergency Service, Hospital - standards</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>general practitioner</subject><subject>Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Nurse-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Pragmatism</subject><subject>Professional Practice - organization & administration</subject><subject>quality</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>targets</subject><subject>Triage - methods</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Waiting Lists</subject><subject>waiting times</subject><subject>Workload</subject><issn>1472-0205</issn><issn>1472-0213</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxiMEoqVw5oYiIYGElO3YY8cOByRYAYu0BQkVrpbjTrpZNkmxk0Jv-xpI7cvtk-BVVsufA5w80vz8fTPzJclDBhPGMD-mZjnhAPkEhCgQbyWHTCieAWd4e1-DPEjuhbAEYLIQ-m5ywJRkKFEeJvx0QelmfS2yRTf4tLf-nPrN-uZ5Sg3FunVXaTv4QGGz_pFe1vQt3E_uVHYV6MHuPUo-vXl9Op1l8w9v301fzrNSctFnZZVbq6wqkGtuOZJzpeaoiSqdl0oVZVHlAtlZySWA5q6yWrsClStyWWmGR8mLUfdiKBs6c9T23q7Mha8b669MZ2vzZ6etF-a8uzQ8l5orjAJPdwK--zpQ6E1TB0erlW2pG4JR0R6BCx3JJ_8mQSKA2M70-C9wGc_WxjMYpjQAKCx4pI5HyvkuBE_VfmgGZpubibmZbW5mzC3-ePT7rr_4XVARyEagDj193_et_2JyhUqa95-n5tV8ejI7wY9mFvlnI19Gp_-5_wQnA7Ec</recordid><startdate>200706</startdate><enddate>200706</enddate><creator>Mortimore, Andy</creator><creator>Cooper, Simon</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident & Emergency Medicine</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200706</creationdate><title>The “4-hour target”: emergency nurses’ views</title><author>Mortimore, Andy ; Cooper, Simon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b524t-bf6aa7a793282a23eccb8238eef86b779b9f6431db250082cfa88c937c965f813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>BMA</topic><topic>British Medical Association</topic><topic>communication</topic><topic>Department of Health</topic><topic>Departments</topic><topic>emergency</topic><topic>emergency department</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency Nursing - methods</topic><topic>Emergency Service, Hospital - standards</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>general practitioner</topic><topic>Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Nurse-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Pragmatism</topic><topic>Professional Practice - organization & administration</topic><topic>quality</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>targets</topic><topic>Triage - methods</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Waiting Lists</topic><topic>waiting times</topic><topic>Workload</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mortimore, Andy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooper, Simon</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Emergency medicine journal : EMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mortimore, Andy</au><au>Cooper, Simon</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The “4-hour target”: emergency nurses’ views</atitle><jtitle>Emergency medicine journal : EMJ</jtitle><addtitle>Emerg Med J</addtitle><date>2007-06</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>402</spage><epage>404</epage><pages>402-404</pages><issn>1472-0205</issn><eissn>1472-0213</eissn><abstract>Objective: To explore nurses’ views and to identify the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the “4-hour target” Methods: The study was based in one emergency department (ED) in the UK and took a generic qualitative approach. A stratified sample of nine experienced ED nurses were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed using the framework analysis1,2 approach. Results: The 4-hour target was considered an overall success in reducing waiting times and increasing patient satisfaction. However, staff expressed concerns over the imposed nature of the target, workload pressures, quality of care, and the level of support from secondary and primary care. Conclusion: Although deemed an overall success, there were reservations as to the target’s sustainability. Recommendations are made for improved communication between primary and secondary care and establishing the target as a shared goal within the hospital environment.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident & Emergency Medicine</pub><pmid>17513535</pmid><doi>10.1136/emj.2006.044933</doi><tpages>3</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1472-0205 |
| ispartof | Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2007-06, Vol.24 (6), p.402-404 |
| issn | 1472-0205 1472-0213 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2658273 |
| source | MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Attitude of Health Personnel BMA British Medical Association communication Department of Health Departments emergency emergency department Emergency medical care Emergency Nursing - methods Emergency Service, Hospital - standards Evaluation Studies as Topic general practitioner Guidelines as Topic Hospitals Humans Nurse-Patient Relations Nurses Original Patient satisfaction Physicians Pragmatism Professional Practice - organization & administration quality Researchers Studies targets Triage - methods United Kingdom Waiting Lists waiting times Workload |
| title | The “4-hour target”: emergency nurses’ views |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T15%3A41%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20%E2%80%9C4-hour%20target%E2%80%9D:%20emergency%20nurses%E2%80%99%20views&rft.jtitle=Emergency%20medicine%20journal%20:%20EMJ&rft.au=Mortimore,%20Andy&rft.date=2007-06&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=402&rft.epage=404&rft.pages=402-404&rft.issn=1472-0205&rft.eissn=1472-0213&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/emj.2006.044933&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E4017971491%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1780007392&rft_id=info:pmid/17513535&rfr_iscdi=true |