Rationing in the emergency department: the good, the bad, and the unacceptable.
OBJECTIVE
Waiting times in emergency departments (EDs) are an important government priority. Although substantial efforts are currently being made to reduce waiting times, little attention has been paid to the patients' view. We used qualitative methods to explore patients' perspectives on waiting times and other approaches to rationing and prioritisation.


METHODS
Face to face, in depth, qualitative interviews (n = 11) explored how patients valued waiting times for non-urgent ED care. The framework approach (identifying a thematic framework through repeated re-reading) was used to analyse transcripts.


RESULTS
Interviewees found some forms of rationing and prioritisation acceptable. They expected rationing by delay, but required explanations or information on the reason for their wait. They valued prioritisation by triage (rationing by selection) and thought that this role could be expanded for the re-direction of non-urgent patients elsewhere (rationing by deflection). Interviewees were mainly unwilling or unable to engage in prioritisation of different types of patients, openly prioritising only those with obvious clinical need, and children. However, some interviewees were willing to ration implicitly, labelling some attenders as inappropriate, such as those causing a nuisance. Others felt it was unacceptable to blame "inappropriate" attenders, as their attendance may relate to lack of information or awareness of service use. Explicit rationing between services was not acceptable, although some believed there were more important priorities for NHS resources than ED waiting times. Interviewees disagreed with the hypothetical notion of paying to be seen more quickly in the ED (rationing by charging).


CONCLUSIONS
Interviewees expected to wait and accepted the need for prioritisation, although they were reluctant to engage in judgements regarding prioritisation. They supported the re-direction of patients with certain non-urgent complaints. However, they perceived a need for more explanation and information about their wait, the system, and alternative services.
Cross
E
E
Health Services Research, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. e.a.cross@sheffield.ac.uk
Goodacre
S
S
O'Cathain
A
A
Arnold
J
J
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001294:Attitude to Health; D003142:Communication; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000458:organization & administration*; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D015276:Health Care Rationing; D006292:Health Priorities; D006302:Health Services Research / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations; D014850:Waiting Lists
Eur J Emerg Med. 1999 Sep;6(3):245-8
10622391
J Nurs Care Qual. 1998 Dec;13(2):31-7
9842173
J Accid Emerg Med. 2000 Jan;17(1):18-21
10658985
Aten Primaria. 2000 Feb 28;25(3):172-5
10730441
Health Policy. 1999 Oct;49(1-2):63-74
10827291
Acad Emerg Med. 2000 Jun;7(6):695-709
10905652
J Accid Emerg Med. 2000 Jul;17(4):246-50
10921809
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Oct;5(4):214-8
11184957
Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Sep;8(9):894-8
11535483
Emerg Med J. 2001 Nov;18(6):430-4
11696488
Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Jan;9(1):15-21
11772664
Accid Emerg Nurs. 2002 Jan;10(1):10-6
11998578
Isr Med Assoc J. 2002 Aug;4(8):603-6
12183864
Presse Med. 2002 Nov 9;31(36):1690-5
12467148
South Med J. 2003 Sep;96(9):880-3
14513984
Sociol Health Illn. 1979 Jun;1(1):90-107
10250394
Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Mar;22(3):568-72
8442546
Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Mar;22(3):586-91
8442550
Arch Emerg Med. 1993 Dec;10(4):388-9
8110347
BMJ. 1995 Jul 1;311(6996):42-5
7613329
Acad Emerg Med. 1995 Dec;2(12):1057-62
8597916
Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Dec;28(6):657-65
8953956
Accid Emerg Nurs. 1997 Jan;5(1):39-41
9069734
Aust Health Rev. 1998;21(1):3-7
10181670
BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):114-6
10625273