❓ The Minister for Health addresses concerns about the four-hour rule in hospital emergency departments, highlighting WA's success and adaptations based on UK experiences, prioritising patient safety and quality.
AnsweredQoN 314Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPArtmentS — FOUR-HOUR RULE
I point to the success, so far, of Western Australia’s four-hour rule, which the federal Labor government is adopting. On the weekend, a particular spin from those opposite was placed on the decision made in the United Kingdom in relation to the target of the four-hour rule. Can the minister please advise the house of the truth of the matter? Dr K.D. HAMES
I point to the success, so far, of Western Australia’s four-hour rule, which the federal Labor government is adopting. On the weekend, a particular spin from those opposite was placed on the decision made in the United Kingdom in relation to the target of the four-hour rule. Can the minister please advise the house of the truth of the matter? Dr K.D. HAMES
AnswerView source ↗
I was switched to first place to give me maximum exposure. I was expecting to be asked that question a little later. Members know that when we came to government, a team of health professionals was about to look at the hospital system in the United Kingdom where the four-hour rule was in place. On being elected, I volunteered to go with that team and look at that system. We were won over by what a great advantage that system was to public patients attending our hospitals. However, we had two concerns about the system operating in the United Kingdom. The first was that there was a reward process whereby the more patients that went through the system, the more money the hospitals got as a bonus for processing those patients. Our second concern was that we were not convinced that adequate quality and safety provisions were in place to make sure that the patients were not either just kicked out of hospital or admitted to a hospital when they did not need to be in order to meet the four-hour rule. Sometimes the best place for a patient is in the emergency department, particularly in our rural and remote hospitals. We put in place the 98 per cent target for those hospitals, but with very strong safety and quality provisions. We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I was switched to first place to give me maximum exposure. I was expecting to be asked that question a little later. Members know that when we came to government, a team of health professionals was about to look at the hospital system in the United Kingdom where the four-hour rule was in place. On being elected, I volunteered to go with that team and look at that system. We were won over by what a great advantage that system was to public patients attending our hospitals. However, we had two concerns about the system operating in the United Kingdom. The first was that there was a reward process whereby the more patients that went through the system, the more money the hospitals got as a bonus for processing those patients. Our second concern was that we were not convinced that adequate quality and safety provisions were in place to make sure that the patients were not either just kicked out of hospital or admitted to a hospital when they did not need to be in order to meet the four-hour rule. Sometimes the best place for a patient is in the emergency department, particularly in our rural and remote hospitals. We put in place the 98 per cent target for those hospitals, but with very strong safety and quality provisions. We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
I was switched to first place to give me maximum exposure. I was expecting to be asked that question a little later. Members know that when we came to government, a team of health professionals was about to look at the hospital system in the United Kingdom where the four-hour rule was in place. On being elected, I volunteered to go with that team and look at that system. We were won over by what a great advantage that system was to public patients attending our hospitals. However, we had two concerns about the system operating in the United Kingdom. The first was that there was a reward process whereby the more patients that went through the system, the more money the hospitals got as a bonus for processing those patients. Our second concern was that we were not convinced that adequate quality and safety provisions were in place to make sure that the patients were not either just kicked out of hospital or admitted to a hospital when they did not need to be in order to meet the four-hour rule. Sometimes the best place for a patient is in the emergency department, particularly in our rural and remote hospitals. We put in place the 98 per cent target for those hospitals, but with very strong safety and quality provisions. We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
Members know that when we came to government, a team of health professionals was about to look at the hospital system in the United Kingdom where the four-hour rule was in place. On being elected, I volunteered to go with that team and look at that system. We were won over by what a great advantage that system was to public patients attending our hospitals. However, we had two concerns about the system operating in the United Kingdom. The first was that there was a reward process whereby the more patients that went through the system, the more money the hospitals got as a bonus for processing those patients. Our second concern was that we were not convinced that adequate quality and safety provisions were in place to make sure that the patients were not either just kicked out of hospital or admitted to a hospital when they did not need to be in order to meet the four-hour rule. Sometimes the best place for a patient is in the emergency department, particularly in our rural and remote hospitals. We put in place the 98 per cent target for those hospitals, but with very strong safety and quality provisions. We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I was switched to first place to give me maximum exposure. I was expecting to be asked that question a little later. Members know that when we came to government, a team of health professionals was about to look at the hospital system in the United Kingdom where the four-hour rule was in place. On being elected, I volunteered to go with that team and look at that system. We were won over by what a great advantage that system was to public patients attending our hospitals. However, we had two concerns about the system operating in the United Kingdom. The first was that there was a reward process whereby the more patients that went through the system, the more money the hospitals got as a bonus for processing those patients. Our second concern was that we were not convinced that adequate quality and safety provisions were in place to make sure that the patients were not either just kicked out of hospital or admitted to a hospital when they did not need to be in order to meet the four-hour rule. Sometimes the best place for a patient is in the emergency department, particularly in our rural and remote hospitals. We put in place the 98 per cent target for those hospitals, but with very strong safety and quality provisions. We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
I was switched to first place to give me maximum exposure. I was expecting to be asked that question a little later. Members know that when we came to government, a team of health professionals was about to look at the hospital system in the United Kingdom where the four-hour rule was in place. On being elected, I volunteered to go with that team and look at that system. We were won over by what a great advantage that system was to public patients attending our hospitals. However, we had two concerns about the system operating in the United Kingdom. The first was that there was a reward process whereby the more patients that went through the system, the more money the hospitals got as a bonus for processing those patients. Our second concern was that we were not convinced that adequate quality and safety provisions were in place to make sure that the patients were not either just kicked out of hospital or admitted to a hospital when they did not need to be in order to meet the four-hour rule. Sometimes the best place for a patient is in the emergency department, particularly in our rural and remote hospitals. We put in place the 98 per cent target for those hospitals, but with very strong safety and quality provisions. We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
Members know that when we came to government, a team of health professionals was about to look at the hospital system in the United Kingdom where the four-hour rule was in place. On being elected, I volunteered to go with that team and look at that system. We were won over by what a great advantage that system was to public patients attending our hospitals. However, we had two concerns about the system operating in the United Kingdom. The first was that there was a reward process whereby the more patients that went through the system, the more money the hospitals got as a bonus for processing those patients. Our second concern was that we were not convinced that adequate quality and safety provisions were in place to make sure that the patients were not either just kicked out of hospital or admitted to a hospital when they did not need to be in order to meet the four-hour rule. Sometimes the best place for a patient is in the emergency department, particularly in our rural and remote hospitals. We put in place the 98 per cent target for those hospitals, but with very strong safety and quality provisions. We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
We have heard that the new government in the United Kingdom has scrapped the four-hour rule. When I heard that, I was fairly concerned because not only were we copping the four-hour rule, but also Mr Rudd has required the rest of Australia to copy us. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we were not bringing in a dud system. After inquiring about the new system in place in the United Kingdom, we found that the UK has switched to a system that is pretty much the same as ours. The UK recognised the same concerns that we had about safety and quality and is putting those provisions in place. The UK said that it would never scrap having a set time period, but that perhaps its system would not operate with the same percentages. It may be that as we reach towards the 98 per cent target we will have to consider whether it is the best figure to go for, because we do not want to compromise safety and quality services. Perhaps further down the track we will revise that figure. It is clear that the system is extremely popular in the United Kingdom. All the reports talked about the UK changing the system, which was a highly popular system in the hospitals. The reports from our hospitals that have introduced the system show that although it is a struggle to implement and requires a total change of behaviour for the whole of the hospital staff to achieve the targets, they would never go back to the old system. They regard this system as a huge improvement on what was in place under the former government. I think we will continue to see growth in the efficiency of the way the system operates. Perhaps we will look at the percentages again down the track but I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom is keeping the system that we have put in place in Western Australia.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.