Purpose Over the last decade there has been considerable debate about the merits of targets as a policy instrument. The purpose of this paper is to examine the implementation of two health targets that were cornerstones of New Zealand health policy between 2009 and 2012: immunisation rates for two-year-olds, and time to treatment, discharge or admission in hospital emergency departments. Design/methodology/approach For each policy target, the authors selected four case-study districts and conducted two waves of key-informant interviews (113 in total) with clinical and management staff involved in target implementation. Findings Despite almost identical levels of target achievement, the research reveals quite different mixes of positive and negative implementation consequences. The authors argue that the differences in implementation consequences are due to the characteristics of the performance measure; and the dynamics of the intra-organisational and inter-organisational implementation context. Research limitations/implications The research is based on interviews with clinical and management staff involved in target implementation, and this approach does not address the issue of effort substitution. Practical implications While literature on health targets pays attention to the attributes of target measures, the paper suggests that policymakers considering the use of targets pay more attention to broader implementation contexts, including the possible impact of, and effects on related services, organisations and staff. Originality/value The research focuses specifically on implementation consequences, as distinct from target success and/or changes in clinical and health outcomes. The paper also adopts a comparative approach to the study of target implementation.
Keywords: Implementation; Performance management; Performance measurement; Performance monitoring; Policy; Targets.