Download PDFPDF

Measurement and improvement of emergency department performance through inspection and rating: an observational study of emergency departments in acute hospitals in England
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Are Care Quality Commission inspections fostering a vicious cycle of (quality) improvement?
    • Jordan Webb, Emergency Physician Tamworth Rural Referral Hospital

    To the editor,
    I read with interest the recent article by Allen et al, “Measurement and improvement of emergency department performance through inspection and rating: an observational study of emergency departments in acute hospitals in England”1.
    National Health Service (NHS) performance indicators are cited throughout Care Quality Commission (CQC) reports when rating emergency departments4-8. Given use of these data as justification for achieving a specific rating, it is reasonable for the authors and the wider acute medicine and healthcare communities to assume a relationship exists between improved ratings and improved performance. Allen et al found no such relationship on any of the 6 emergency department NHS performance indicators prior to CQC inspection and on the subsequent rating score. This finding expands the void of evidence to support the suggestion of improved emergency department performance after inspection and published ratings2.
    Performance indicators such as those implemented by Allen et al and the CQC have evolved over the
    last 2 decades as we attempt to “cross the quality chasm”. Time and presentation-based data points
    such as time to assessment and treatment, time in department, unplanned re-presentations, left
    before being seen etc. are easily measurable since the advent on electronic health records and patient
    management systems. Their reflections in the tenets of the Institute of Medicine’s ideals of safety...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.