Waiting time targets at A&E to be scrapped!

There needs to be a quick and efficient triage system where those most in need are prioritised (and it cannot be based on ambulances come first otherwise we will just see more people calling ambulances when they do not need one).

Secondly we need a half way house system (convalescence) in order to free up the beds on wards currently blocked by those unable to go home without some kind of care in place.

We need targets or people could wait indefinitely.
Treatment and care when accessed is wonderful. No complaints.
But more staff is needed and more GPs, minor injuries units.
NHS is a shambles. We're paying for a service that isn't delivering.

I think Teetime's post explains it well and succinctly in a professional way without political bias.

But why would not having targets change that? Surely better triage is the answer ( well partly)

Because many people in A&E are there for reasons which are not urgent and could wait longer than the 4 hour target in a waiting room or be dealt with by a chemist.

Anyone who arrives in an ambulance should be fast-tracked through and could be if people who are there for minor reasons could wait longer.

Or give up, go off grumbling that they'd have to go home , go to the chemist etc or come back again as I have seen people do.

Call where would the people from the ambulances go? I thought they were waiting for a space in A and E?

Teetime your post is very interesting.

I think targets are wrong as are league tables.

If it means that patients do not have to wait outside A&E in ambulances for 9 or so hours as some have done recently in Wales then perhaps the targets should be scrapped.
At least then patients would not have to wait until the next day for an ambulance.

BTW the NHS in Wales is devolved to the Labour government.

Instead of a target, are hospitals now going to report on average waiting times, including in an ambulance - or what?

No, A&E staff, nurses doctors do NOT welcome this.

How do readmission rates audit A & E?

Readmission rates a reflection of possibly being discharged too early and poor follow-up care in a community setting, not A & E.

I remember standing outside at about 3 am (it was a bitterly cold night) and a male nurse coming out after me telling me to take my DH to another hospital . You really couldn’t make it up .

God gilly not triaged in all that time. I just didn’t think thst could happen. I’m beyond words.

Exactly Welbeck people in beds who do not need to be in hospital but cannot go home without some care in place. It’s a complete shambles.

No suziewoozie he was not triaged. It was a Friday night and they had their hands full seeing to their regulars (drunks and druggies).

He could barely stand or sit. He was being violently sick and crying . A 6ft 2” man ! Ignored and desperately ill. 7 and a half hours later he passed out and was “seen” . What followed was anyone’s worst nightmare .

If the target is scrapped, there will be no way of knowing that A & Es are overstretched.

There are plenty of better ways to audit efficience such as readmission rate, theraputic outcome, mortality, satisfaction surveys

Yes * welbeck* there’s a whole system failure and the danger is that by abolishing the target, we’ll hear nothing more about long waits but the problem will remain and probably get worse.

gilly wasn’t he even triaged?

and those lack of beds on wards is often caused by not having suitable safe places to discharge elderly/chronically il/ disabled patients to.
nursing homes, care system, costs, availability....
the whole thing is crock.

It is not the lack of doctors and nurses causing the holdups but the lack of beds on wards to transfer to .

The 4 hour wait was a joke anyway . When I took my critically ill DH to A&E at the beginning of October we waited over 7 hours before he saw anyone .

I agree with grow we need to have information about waiting times - that’s not the same as having a target but neither is it an irrelevance as to how long people have to wait. As has been said by many before here and elsewhere, some changes to the GP system would help to avoid unnecessary attendances.

Surely if an A & E consistently fails to meet the 4 hour deadline, resources need to be increased rather than "punishing" it for failing to meet the threshold.

If the target is scrapped, there will be no way of knowing that A & Es are overstretched.

I think that scrapping the target times in A&E is a good thing.
How on earth it was thought that it could always be followed, I don't know.
Emergencies crop up, and need to be dealt with quickly, and I think the same as Wildswan16.

I agree with you Wildswan. Maybe if the "stubbed toe" people have a long wait the "real" emergencies will be sorted more swiftly.
No need to punish the A&E staff for having too few GPs