Impact of the Four-Hour Rule policy on emergency medical services delays in Australian EDs: a longitudinal cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed handover of emergency medical services (EMS) patients to EDs is a major issue with hospital crowding considered a primary cause. We explore the impact of the 4-hour rule (the Policy) in Australia, focusing on ambulance and ED delays. METHODS: EMS (ambulance), ED and hospital data of adult patients presenting to 14 EDs from 2002 to 2013 in three jurisdictions were linked. Interrupted time series 'Before-and-After' trend analysis was used for assessing the Policy's impact. Random effects meta-regression analysis was examined for associations between ambulance delays and Policy-associated ED intake, throughput and output changes. RESULTS: Before the Policy, the proportion of ED ambulances delayed increased between 1.1% and 1.7% per quarter across jurisdictions. After Policy introduction, Western Australia's increasing trend continued but Queensland decreased by 5.1% per quarter. In New South Wales, ambulance delay decreased 7.1% in the first quarter after Policy introduction. ED intake (triage delay) improved only in New South Wales and Queensland. Each 1% ambulance delay reduction was significantly associated with a 0.91% reduction in triage delay (p=0.014) but not ED length of stay ≤4 hours (p=0.307) or access-block/boarding (p=0.605) suggesting only partial improvement in ambulance delay overall. CONCLUSION: The Policy was associated with reduced ambulance delays over time in Queensland and only the immediate period in New South Wales. Associations may be due to local jurisdictional initiatives to improve ambulance performance. Strategies to alleviate ambulance delay may need to focus on the ED intake component. These should be re-examined with longer periods of post-Policy data.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability prevalence: making sense of multiple estimates and definitions.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the multiple sources of statistics on prevalence of disability among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) people in Australia to provide reliable headline estimates. METHODS: Survey documentation and statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) were collated and comparatively analysed. RESULTS: Two separate concepts are defined by the ABS: 'Disability' and 'Disability and restrictive health conditions'. The former is used in the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC), the recommended source of disability prevalence estimates. The second is used in surveys to compare people with disability to those without. The 2014-15 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey (NATSISS) used a mix of these definitions, which led to differing prevalence estimates from SDAC estimates. Further, there is confusion in the NATSISS results, with 'disability' frequently replacing 'disability and restrictive health condition'. DISCUSSION: The SDAC should be used for prevalence statistics on disability in the Indigenous population. The ABS should act to clarify or withdraw confusing results from the 2014-15 NATSISS survey. Implications for public health: Official statistics are used to allocate resources; in particular, to and within the National Disability Insurance Scheme. These need to be accurate to ensure Indigenous people's health needs are met.