The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance Improvement and Performance Dysfunction: An Empirical Examination of Distortionary Impacts of the Emergency Room Wait-Time Target in the English National Health Service
Abstract
The literature on the use of performance measurement in government has focused much attention on hypothesized unintended dysfunctional consequences that such measurement may produce.We conceptualize these dysfunctional consequences as involving either effort substitution (reducing effort on nonmeasured performance dimensions) or gaming (making performance on the measured performance dimension appear better, when in fact it is not).In this paper, we examine both performance impacts and dysfunctional consequences of the establishment in the English National Health Service of a performance target that no patient presenting in a hospital accident and emergency department (emergency room) wait more than 4 hours for treatment.Using data from all 155 hospital trusts in England, we find dramatic wait-time performance improvements between 2003 and 2006 and no evidence for any of the dysfunctional effects that have been hypothesized in connection with this target.We conclude by discussing when one would expect dysfunctional effects to appear and when not.During the past decades, there has been a significant increase in use of nonfinancial performance measurement in government as a tool to improve both democratic accountability and organizational performance (Cave, Kogan, and Smith 1990;Carter, Klein, and Day 1992;Hatry 1999; Heinrich 2003;Talbot 2005).Examples of such performance measures include anything from crime rates for the police to average wait time at a Division of Motor Vehicles office to the percentage of citizens calling a Social Security call center whoWe gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Stephen Morris, Lis Nixon, Liz Chart, Adrian Masters, Duncan Selbie, and Bill Alexander in helping us locate data used in this article and in answering a large number of questions from us, and of Paul Corrigan in arranging access to the UK Department of Health.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176
WHAT’S MEASURED IS WHAT MATTERS: TARGETS AND GAMING IN THE ENGLISH PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
BEVAN, G., & HOOD, C. (2006) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x · Cited by 1,580
Jacob, B. A. (2005) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.004 · Cited by 751
Cited by
Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C. M., Mathiasen, A. H., Moynihan, D. P., & Petersen, N. B. G. (2018) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy001 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelman, S., & Friedman, J. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-02-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 917-946
- ISSN
- 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9803
- OpenAlex
- W3121798526
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 44.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.