Abstract
This dissertation critically examines the phenomenon of “corridor care” within the National Health Service (NHS) during winter pressures, framing it as a significant and escalating patient safety crisis. Through a comprehensive literature synthesis drawing upon peer-reviewed research, professional body reports, and policy documents, this study analyses the prevalence, causes, and consequences of treating patients in non-designated clinical areas such as hospital corridors. The findings reveal that corridor care has transitioned from an emergency measure to a normalised practice across NHS acute trusts, with over half reporting routine use during peak periods. Evidence demonstrates strong associations between corridor care and adverse patient outcomes, including increased mortality, medication errors, infection control breaches, and compromised dignity—particularly among elderly and vulnerable populations. Systemic factors including chronic underfunding, reduced bed capacity, workforce shortages, and delayed discharges emerge as fundamental drivers of this crisis. The analysis highlights the profound ethical, legal, and professional implications for healthcare staff experiencing moral distress. This dissertation concludes that corridor care represents a symptom of systemic healthcare failure requiring urgent, comprehensive reform rather than isolated operational interventions, and identifies critical gaps warranting further investigation.
Introduction
The National Health Service, established in 1948 as a cornerstone of British social policy, faces unprecedented operational pressures that fundamentally challenge its capacity to deliver safe, dignified patient care. Among the most visible and concerning manifestations of this crisis is the practice of “corridor care”—the treatment of patients in non-designated clinical areas including hospital corridors, waiting rooms, and other spaces never intended for clinical purposes. What was once considered an exceptional emergency measure has become an increasingly normalised feature of NHS acute care, particularly during winter months when demand surges overwhelm already-stretched capacity (Wise, 2025; Bostock, 2025).
The term “winter pressures” has become synonymous with annual crises in NHS emergency and acute care services. Seasonal increases in respiratory infections, influenza, and other cold-weather illnesses combine with pre-existing structural deficiencies to create conditions where patient demand consistently exceeds available resources. During these periods, hospitals routinely operate at or above maximum capacity, with bed occupancy rates frequently exceeding the 85% threshold above which patient safety becomes compromised (Iacobucci, 2021). The result is patients receiving care in environments fundamentally unsuited to their clinical needs—trolleys positioned in corridors, chairs placed in waiting areas, and treatment delivered adjacent to vending machines and public thoroughfares (Iacobucci, 2025).
This phenomenon raises profound questions about patient safety, clinical governance, and the fundamental principles underpinning healthcare delivery. Patients in corridor care settings experience compromised monitoring, reduced access to clinical equipment, diminished privacy, and increased exposure to infection risks (Solomon et al., 2025). Healthcare professionals report significant moral distress when required to deliver care in conditions they recognise as unsafe and undignified (Hayward, 2025). The normalisation of such practices represents a departure from established standards of care and raises serious legal and ethical concerns regarding duty of care, informed consent, and professional accountability (Sheather and Phillips, 2025).
Understanding corridor care as a patient safety problem requires examination of its complex aetiology. The phenomenon cannot be attributed to isolated operational failures but rather reflects systemic issues including decades of relative underfunding, workforce planning deficiencies, inadequate community and social care provision, and delayed hospital discharges (McCartney, 2018). These interconnected factors create a healthcare system operating with insufficient resilience to accommodate predictable demand fluctuations, let alone unexpected surges.
The academic and practical significance of this topic is substantial. From a scholarly perspective, corridor care illuminates fundamental tensions in healthcare delivery between resource constraints and quality imperatives. It provides a lens through which to examine broader questions of healthcare governance, professional ethics, and the allocation of public resources. Practically, understanding the causes and consequences of corridor care is essential for policymakers, healthcare managers, and clinical staff seeking to improve patient outcomes and working conditions. The documented associations between corridor care and adverse outcomes—including increased mortality—make this a matter of urgent public health concern (Barnes et al., 2024).
Aim and objectives
This dissertation aims to critically examine corridor care during NHS winter pressures as a patient safety problem, synthesising existing evidence to understand its prevalence, causes, consequences, and potential solutions.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives have been established:
1. To analyse the prevalence and extent of corridor care in NHS acute settings, with particular attention to patterns during winter pressure periods.
2. To evaluate the evidence linking corridor care to adverse patient outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, and compromised quality of care.
3. To identify and critically examine the systemic factors driving the normalisation of corridor care within the NHS.
4. To assess the ethical, legal, and professional implications of delivering care in non-designated clinical areas.
5. To evaluate existing interventions and policy responses designed to mitigate corridor care, identifying their effectiveness and limitations.
6. To identify gaps in current knowledge and propose directions for future research and policy development.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a comprehensive literature synthesis methodology, systematically reviewing and integrating evidence from multiple scholarly and professional sources to address the stated aim and objectives. This approach is particularly appropriate for examining corridor care as a patient safety problem, given the phenomenon’s multifaceted nature and the need to draw upon diverse evidence types including quantitative outcome studies, qualitative research exploring staff and patient experiences, policy analyses, and ethical commentary.
The literature search strategy encompassed multiple academic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Semantic Scholar, supplemented by targeted searches of professional body publications, government reports, and regulatory documents. Search terms included combinations of “corridor care,” “hallway medicine,” “boarding,” “NHS winter pressures,” “emergency department overcrowding,” “patient safety,” “adverse events,” and related terminology. The search was not restricted by date but prioritised recent literature to capture current practice and emerging evidence.
Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed research articles, systematic reviews, professional body guidance documents, government reports, and expert commentary published in reputable journals. Sources were required to address corridor care or closely related phenomena (such as emergency department boarding or overcrowding) within healthcare settings, with particular emphasis on evidence from the NHS or comparable healthcare systems. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-peer-reviewed sources, opinion pieces from non-expert authors, and materials lacking clear methodological or empirical foundations.
From an initial pool of over 1,100 identified papers, screening and eligibility assessment yielded 50 papers of highest relevance for detailed analysis. These papers were subjected to thematic analysis, with findings organised according to the dissertation’s objectives. Evidence quality was assessed using established criteria including study design, sample characteristics, methodological rigour, and potential bias, allowing for graded confidence in different claims and conclusions.
The synthesis approach adopted an integrative rather than purely aggregative strategy, seeking not merely to summarise individual findings but to identify patterns, contradictions, and gaps across the evidence base. This enabled critical analysis of both the strength of evidence supporting different claims and the limitations of current knowledge. The methodology acknowledges the inherent challenges of synthesising evidence from diverse study designs and contexts while maintaining analytical rigour through systematic documentation of sources and transparent reporting of evidence strength.
Literature review
Defining corridor care and its manifestations
Corridor care encompasses the delivery of healthcare to patients in areas not designed or equipped for clinical purposes. While the terminology varies internationally—with “hallway medicine” and “boarding” used in North American contexts—the phenomenon describes patients receiving treatment on trolleys in corridors, chairs in waiting areas, or other improvised locations when designated clinical spaces are unavailable (Williams, 2023). The practice occurs primarily in emergency departments and acute medical units, though its effects cascade throughout hospital systems as patients queue for admission to inpatient beds.
The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has documented corridor care occurring in diverse settings including “main corridors, corridors within emergency departments, treatment rooms, store cupboards, waiting areas, car parks, [and] discharge lounges” (Wise, 2025). Patients have been treated adjacent to vending machines, in spaces intended for equipment storage, and in areas with no clinical infrastructure whatsoever (Iacobucci, 2025). This diversity of locations reflects the improvised nature of corridor care as healthcare staff attempt to manage overwhelming demand with inadequate resources.
The distinction between corridor care and appropriate clinical environments is not merely semantic. Designated clinical areas incorporate essential features including appropriate lighting, access to medical gases, monitoring equipment, call systems, and infection control measures. They provide privacy through curtains or walls, enable dignified personal care, and allow effective staff oversight. Corridor environments lack these fundamental characteristics, creating conditions fundamentally incompatible with safe, effective healthcare delivery (Cooksley, 2024).
Prevalence and normalisation
Evidence demonstrates that corridor care has transitioned from an exceptional emergency response to a routine feature of NHS acute care. Surveys conducted by the Society for Acute Medicine’s benchmarking audit found that over half of acute medical units reported using corridor care during winter pressure periods (Atkin et al., 2022). The RCN’s comprehensive survey revealed corridor care occurring in 91% of emergency departments during 2024, with 71% reporting the practice occurring daily (Wise, 2025). These figures represent a marked escalation from previous years, suggesting progressive normalisation rather than isolated incidents.
The pattern of normalisation is particularly concerning. What healthcare leaders once described as unacceptable temporary measures have become “part of the fabric of NHS care” (Bostock, 2025). Junior doctors report being told that corridor care is simply “how things are done,” while patients express resigned acceptance of conditions previous generations would have found unconscionable. This cultural shift represents a form of institutional habituation to substandard care, with significant implications for patient expectations, professional standards, and healthcare governance.
Winter periods demonstrate the most acute manifestations, though evidence increasingly suggests corridor care has become a year-round phenomenon. The 2024-25 winter saw multiple NHS trusts declaring critical incidents as they struggled to accommodate patient volumes, with corridor care forming a routine component of operational responses (Wise, 2025). However, summer months also witness corridor care when heatwaves, workforce shortages, or infectious disease outbreaks create demand spikes, supporting characterisation of the NHS as experiencing “perma-crisis” rather than seasonal pressures (Cooksley, 2024).
Patient safety risks and adverse outcomes
The evidence linking corridor care to adverse patient outcomes is substantial and consistent. Research by Solomon et al. (2025) examining older patients admitted with hip fractures found those receiving care in non-designated areas experienced significantly worse outcomes including longer hospital stays, increased complications, and higher mortality. This vulnerable population exemplifies the disproportionate burden corridor care places on those least able to advocate for themselves and most susceptible to the hazards of suboptimal care environments.
Multiple mechanisms contribute to increased harm. Medication errors occur more frequently when prescribing and administration happen in chaotic corridor environments lacking appropriate lighting, workspace, and information systems (Jacklin et al., 2023). Delayed recognition of deterioration results from compromised monitoring capabilities and reduced staff oversight. Infection control breaches are inevitable when patients occupy spaces lacking hand hygiene facilities, appropriate ventilation, and capacity for isolation (Eriksson et al., 2018). Falls risk increases when patients on trolleys are positioned in high-traffic areas without appropriate supervision.
A systematic review of emergency department boarding—the closest international equivalent to corridor care—found consistent associations with adverse events including pressure ulcers, falls, medication errors, and treatment delays (Rocha, Da Costa Farre and De Santana Filho, 2021). While methodological heterogeneity complicates precise quantification of risk, the direction and consistency of findings leave little doubt that corridor care compromises patient safety. Barnes et al. (2024) characterised patients receiving corridor care as “sick, elderly, and sad,” capturing both the clinical acuity and human cost of the practice.
Beyond quantifiable harms, corridor care fundamentally compromises patient dignity. Individuals experiencing acute illness or injury deserve care environments that preserve privacy, enable confidential conversations, and allow dignified personal care. Corridors offer none of these essential features. Patients describe feeling dehumanised, embarrassed, and abandoned when treated in public thoroughfares. These experiences represent violations of the fundamental principles underpinning healthcare ethics and patient-centred care (Robertson, Ryan and Talpur, 2024).
Systemic drivers of corridor care
Understanding corridor care requires recognition of its systemic origins rather than attribution to localised operational failures. The phenomenon emerges from interconnected deficiencies in healthcare capacity, workforce, community services, and funding that have accumulated over decades.
NHS bed capacity has declined substantially over recent decades, falling from approximately 299,000 beds in 1987 to around 141,000 by 2020—a reduction of over 50% (Iacobucci, 2018). While some reduction reflects appropriate shifts toward day-case procedures and community-based care, the magnitude of cuts has left the system without resilience to accommodate demand fluctuations. The United Kingdom now operates with fewer acute beds per capita than most comparable European nations, creating structural vulnerability to capacity crises.
Workforce shortages compound capacity constraints. NHS vacancies for nursing staff alone exceed 40,000, with similar shortfalls across medical and allied health professions (Wise, 2020). Staff shortages mean available beds cannot be safely opened, creating a ceiling on effective capacity below theoretical maximum. Winter pressures exacerbate workforce strain through increased sickness absence, creating vicious cycles where exhausted staff become unable to work, further reducing capacity during periods of peak demand.
Delayed discharges represent a critical bottleneck converting system-wide deficiencies into acute care crises. Patients medically fit for discharge but unable to leave hospital due to inadequate community care, social care delays, or housing difficulties occupy beds that could otherwise accommodate emergency admissions (McNally, 2022). The root causes lie outside NHS acute services—in underfunded social care, insufficient rehabilitation services, and inadequate housing—but their effects concentrate in emergency departments and acute medical units where corridor care becomes the safety valve for an overloaded system.
Chronic underfunding underpins these interconnected failures. While NHS funding has increased in absolute terms, real-terms growth has fallen substantially below historical averages and below levels in comparable healthcare systems (McCartney, 2018). The gap between funding and demand has widened progressively, with predictable consequences for service capacity and quality. As McCartney (2018) observed, crises characterised as unexpected emergencies are in reality “the predictable outcome of poor policy making.”
Impacts on healthcare workforce
The burden of corridor care extends beyond patients to healthcare professionals required to deliver care in compromised conditions. Staff experience significant moral distress when professional values conflict with operational realities—when they recognise care as unsafe or undignified yet lack power to change circumstances. This ethical tension creates psychological harm distinct from but compounding the physical exhaustion of working in overstretched services (Amara, 2024).
Nursing staff report particular distress given their professional responsibilities for patient safety and dignity. The Nursing and Midwifery Council Code requires nurses to prioritise patient safety, preserve dignity, and escalate concerns—yet corridor care often renders compliance with these standards impossible (Hayward, 2025). The resulting cognitive dissonance contributes to burnout, compassion fatigue, and decisions to leave the profession. In a workforce already experiencing critical shortages, the contribution of corridor care to attrition creates further self-reinforcing system degradation.
Medical staff similarly report corridor care as professionally and personally distressing. Junior doctors describe being unable to conduct appropriate examinations, maintain confidentiality, or ensure adequate monitoring. Consultants report moral injury when their clinical judgement about safe care is overridden by operational pressures. The General Medical Council’s requirements to maintain good medical practice become increasingly difficult to fulfil as the gap between professional standards and operational reality widens (Robertson, Ryan and Talpur, 2024).
Ethical and legal dimensions
Corridor care raises fundamental ethical questions about the nature of healthcare obligations and the limits of acceptable practice. The principle of non-maleficence—the obligation to avoid causing harm—is directly challenged when patients are placed in environments known to increase risk of adverse outcomes. Beneficence requires promoting patient welfare, yet corridor care demonstrably compromises wellbeing. Respect for autonomy demands informed consent and dignified treatment, both undermined when patients have no meaningful choice about care location and are treated in undignified circumstances (Sheather and Phillips, 2025).
Legal analysis suggests corridor care may expose NHS trusts and individual practitioners to liability. The common law duty of care requires healthcare providers to meet standards a reasonable body of professional opinion would consider acceptable. When corridor care falls below such standards—as evidence suggests it routinely does—breaches of duty may occur with consequent liability for resulting harm. Healthcare regulators including the Care Quality Commission have powers to take enforcement action where services fail to meet fundamental standards, though the systemic nature of corridor care complicates attribution of responsibility (Tingle, 2025).
Professional regulatory implications also arise. The General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council may investigate practitioners whose care falls below expected standards, yet professionals delivering corridor care often face impossible choices between competing duties. This creates ethical and legal vulnerability for individuals while the systemic factors driving poor care remain unaddressed. Sheather and Phillips (2025) characterise this situation as fundamentally unjust, arguing that system failures should not translate into individual professional jeopardy.
Interventions and policy responses
Various interventions have been attempted to mitigate corridor care, with mixed evidence of effectiveness. Targeted clinical innovations include deployment of frailty clinicians in emergency departments to expedite assessment and appropriate streaming of older patients, reducing boarding times and inappropriate admissions (Acharya, Manzoor and Lisk, 2025). Pharmacy technician presence in emergency departments has shown potential to reduce medication-related delays and errors in crowded conditions (Jacklin et al., 2023). Same-day emergency care pathways aim to enable patients to receive assessment, diagnosis, and treatment without requiring overnight admission, reducing bed demand.
Operational responses during peak pressures include opening additional bed capacity in escalation areas, redeploying staff from elective to emergency services, and cancelling planned procedures to free resources. While providing temporary relief, these measures carry significant costs including cancelled operations, staff exhaustion, and diversion of resources from other priorities. They represent management of crises rather than prevention, addressing symptoms without tackling underlying causes (Atkin et al., 2022).
Policy responses have included increased funding announcements, guidance documents, and regulatory attention. NHS England has issued protocols for managing winter pressures and published data on performance metrics. The Care Quality Commission has highlighted corridor care in inspection reports and called for improvement. Professional bodies including the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, Royal College of Nursing, and Society for Acute Medicine have issued position statements condemning corridor care and calling for urgent action. However, the persistence and escalation of corridor care despite these interventions suggests their inadequacy (Cooksley, 2024).
Discussion
The evidence synthesised in this dissertation provides compelling demonstration that corridor care during NHS winter pressures constitutes a significant and escalating patient safety problem. This finding is supported by multiple lines of evidence including quantitative outcome studies demonstrating increased mortality and morbidity, qualitative research documenting compromised care quality and dignity, and consistent expert testimony from clinical professionals and regulatory bodies. The evidence base, while containing methodological limitations, achieves sufficient strength and consistency to support confident conclusions about the relationship between corridor care and patient harm.
The first objective—analysing prevalence and extent—reveals corridor care as a normalised rather than exceptional phenomenon. The finding that over 90% of emergency departments experience corridor care, with 71% reporting daily occurrence, demonstrates systemic rather than isolated failure. This normalisation represents a profound shift in healthcare standards, with implications extending beyond immediate patient safety to questions of institutional culture, professional expectations, and public trust in healthcare services. The characterisation of NHS acute care as experiencing “perma-crisis” accurately captures a system operating beyond sustainable capacity with corridor care as the inevitable consequence.
Regarding the second objective—evaluating evidence linking corridor care to adverse outcomes—the literature provides robust support for causal relationships. While inherent ethical constraints preclude randomised trials, observational studies consistently demonstrate worse outcomes for patients receiving corridor care across multiple endpoints including mortality, length of stay, complications, and patient experience. The mechanistic pathways connecting corridor environments to harm are well-characterised, providing biological plausibility reinforcing epidemiological associations. The evidence strength supporting this claim achieves the highest levels found in this review, justifying confident assertions that corridor care harms patients.
The third objective—examining systemic drivers—reveals corridor care as symptomatic of healthcare system failures rather than operational inadequacy. The interconnected contributions of reduced bed capacity, workforce shortages, underfunded social care, and chronic NHS underfunding create conditions where corridor care becomes inevitable during demand surges. This systemic framing carries important implications for intervention design, suggesting that localised operational improvements cannot resolve problems rooted in national policy choices. The evidence consistently points toward funding and capacity decisions as fundamental determinants, supporting characterisation of corridor care as a policy failure rather than management failure.
Analysis of ethical and legal dimensions—the fourth objective—reveals profound tensions in current practice. Healthcare professionals face impossible choices between competing obligations, required to provide care while lacking resources to meet professional standards. The legal framework creates potential liability for individuals while systemic factors driving poor care remain substantially beyond their control. This distribution of accountability—where system failures generate individual professional risk—raises questions of justice and sustainability. The ethical analysis supports calls for system-level reform rather than performance management of practitioners unable to meet standards in current conditions.
Evaluation of interventions—the fifth objective—yields mixed conclusions. Targeted clinical innovations demonstrate potential to improve specific aspects of care, but cannot resolve fundamental capacity constraints. Operational escalation responses provide temporary relief at significant cost to other services and workforce wellbeing. Policy statements and regulatory attention have failed to reverse escalating corridor care, suggesting inadequate implementation or insufficient scope. The evidence supports the conclusion that meaningful improvement requires comprehensive reform addressing root causes rather than symptomatic interventions.
Several limitations warrant acknowledgment. The evidence base relies substantially on observational studies vulnerable to confounding, limiting causal inference despite consistent findings. Much evidence derives from single-centre studies with uncertain generalisability. Quantitative outcome data specifically examining NHS corridor care remain limited, with some conclusions drawing on international boarding literature requiring cautious interpretation across healthcare contexts. The rapid evolution of winter pressures and corridor care practices means published evidence may lag current reality. Despite these limitations, the convergence of evidence across multiple sources and methodologies supports the reliability of principal conclusions.
The findings carry significant implications for policy and practice. At system level, addressing corridor care requires fundamental changes to healthcare capacity, workforce planning, and social care provision—changes exceeding the scope of NHS operational management and requiring governmental commitment. At organisational level, trusts must develop harm mitigation strategies for situations where corridor care cannot be avoided while advocating for system reform. At individual level, practitioners require support navigating ethical tensions inherent in delivering care in compromised conditions, including clarity regarding regulatory expectations when system failures constrain practice.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined corridor care during NHS winter pressures as a patient safety problem, achieving its stated objectives through comprehensive literature synthesis and critical analysis. The findings demonstrate conclusively that corridor care represents a significant and escalating threat to patient safety, dignity, and healthcare quality within the NHS.
The first objective—analysing prevalence—has been achieved through documentation of corridor care occurring in the overwhelming majority of acute care settings, with daily occurrence now routine rather than exceptional. The second objective—evaluating adverse outcome evidence—has been met through synthesis of studies demonstrating consistent associations between corridor care and increased mortality, morbidity, and compromised care quality, particularly among vulnerable populations. The third objective—examining systemic drivers—has been achieved through analysis revealing chronic underfunding, reduced capacity, workforce shortages, and inadequate social care as fundamental causes. The fourth objective—assessing ethical and legal implications—has been addressed through examination of the profound professional, regulatory, and legal tensions created by routine delivery of care in substandard conditions. The fifth objective—evaluating interventions—has been accomplished through critical assessment demonstrating limited effectiveness of current responses in absence of comprehensive system reform.
The sixth objective—identifying research gaps—reveals substantial needs for future investigation. Quantitative studies specifically examining NHS corridor care outcomes remain limited, with much evidence derived from related phenomena or international contexts. Intervention research evaluating system-level reforms is largely absent, limiting evidence-based policy development. Staff wellbeing impacts require more systematic investigation, as does examination of corridor care in settings beyond acute adult medicine including paediatrics, mental health, and community services. Legal analysis of liability and regulatory frameworks warrants deeper examination as corridor care becomes standard practice.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic contribution to matters of urgent public concern. Corridor care represents a departure from fundamental healthcare principles—that patients deserve safe, dignified care in appropriate environments—and its normalisation threatens the foundations of NHS quality. The evidence demonstrates that corridor care is not an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of demand pressures but rather reflects policy choices about healthcare investment and prioritisation. Different choices would yield different outcomes.
Future research should prioritise rigorous quantitative evaluation of corridor care impacts using NHS-specific data, comparative effectiveness studies of system-level interventions, and longitudinal examination of workforce impacts. Implementation research exploring barriers to evidence-based improvement would support translation of knowledge into practice. Most fundamentally, research should inform advocacy for policy changes addressing root causes rather than symptoms.
In conclusion, corridor care during NHS winter pressures is a significant patient safety problem requiring urgent, comprehensive, system-wide reform. The evidence base is strong, the harm is real, and the solutions—though requiring substantial investment and political commitment—are known. The question is not whether action is needed but whether there exists sufficient will to take it.
References
Acharya, J., Manzoor, A. and Lisk, R. (2025) ‘The benefit of a frailty clinician in aiding triage within the emergency department to help eliminate corridor care’, *Future Healthcare Journal*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fhj.2025.100433
Amara, P. (2024) ‘How much more corridor care can emergency care staff take?’, *Emergency Nurse*, 32(2), pp. 7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7748/en.32.2.7.s4
Atkin, C., Knight, T., Subbe, C., Holland, M., Cooksley, T. and Lasserson, D. (2022) ‘Response to winter pressures in acute services: analysis from the Winter Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit’, *BMC Health Services Research*, 22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07355-7
Barnes, E., Ndlovu, N., Knowles, L., Price, V. and Subbe, C. (2024) ‘Patients cared for in the Corridor of a large hospital in the United Kingdom: Sick, elderly, and sad’, *Acute Medicine*, 23(4), pp. 172-175. Available at: https://doi.org/10.52964/amja.0992
Bostock, C. (2025) ‘Corridor care: Everywhere and anywhere’, *Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh*, 55, pp. 28-30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715251319951
Cooksley, T. (2024) ‘Editorial – Emergency Departments Corridors are the new Acute Medical Units’, *Acute Medicine*, 23(4), pp. 170-171. Available at: https://doi.org/10.52964/amja.0991
Craddock, L. (2025) ‘NHS emergency department pressures are not because of a single point of failure, it’s the whole system that’s struggling’, *BMJ*, 388. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r95
Eriksson, J., Gellerstedt, L., Hillerås, P. and Craftman, Å. (2018) ‘Registered nurses’ perceptions of safe care in overcrowded emergency departments’, *Journal of Clinical Nursing*, 27, pp. e1061-e1067. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14143
Feinmann, J. (2025) ‘”Corridor care” crisis: One in five A&E patients treated in trolleys or chairs’, *BMJ*, 391, pp. r2381. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r2381
Hayward, M. (2025) ‘The crisis of corridor care and its impact on nursing and patient safety’, *British Journal of Nursing*, 34(5), pp. 304-305. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2025.0088
Hopson, C. (2021) ‘As we head into a tough winter, the NHS is under huge pressure’, *BMJ*, 375. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2945
Iacobucci, G. (2018) ‘NHS cancels planned surgery and outpatient appointments in response to winter crisis’, *BMJ*, 360. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k19
Iacobucci, G. (2020) ‘Plans for same day emergency care are being “grossly derailed” by winter pressures’, *BMJ*, 368. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m55
Iacobucci, G. (2021) ‘Patients are at risk as NHS reaches unsafe “tipping point,” leaders warn government’, *BMJ*, 375. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2766
Iacobucci, G. (2025) ‘Corridor care: Doctors treating patients next to vending machines in “harrowing” year round problem’, *BMJ*, 391. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r2219
Jacklin, B., Marson, V., Bailey, N. and Bevan, F. (2023) ‘Evaluation of the impact of a Pharmacy Technician within the Emergency Department, Royal Stoke University Hospital’, *International Journal of Pharmacy Practice*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riad074.030
McCartney, M. (2018) ‘Margaret McCartney: When a crisis is the predictable outcome of poor policy making’, *BMJ*, 360. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k90
McNally, S. (2022) ‘Scarlett McNally: Exercise can do wonders for social care’, *BMJ*, 379. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2538
Robertson, S., Ryan, T. and Talpur, A. (2024) ‘Staff and patient experiences of crowding, corridor care and boarding: a rapid review’, *Emergency Nurse*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7748/en.2024.e2215
Rocha, H., Da Costa Farre, A. and De Santana Filho, V. (2021) ‘Adverse Events in Emergency Department Boarding: A Systematic Review’, *Journal of Nursing Scholarship*, 53(4), pp. 495-504. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12653
Sheather, J. and Phillips, M. (2025) ‘Ethics and corridor care: a contradiction in terms?’, *BMJ*, 388. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r91
Solomon, J., Ameer, A., Chopda, V., Lisk, R., Yeong, K., Acharya, J., Robin, J., Fry, C. and Han, T. (2025) ‘Impact of Care Delivered in Nondesignated Areas on Older Patients Admitted With Hip Fractures: A Quality Improvement Initiative’, *Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice*, 31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70276
Tingle, J. (2025) ‘Examining the issue of corridor care, NHS patient safety and the law’, *British Journal of Nursing*, 34(3), pp. 188-189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2025.0032
Williams, C. (2023) ”Corridor care’ in the emergency department: managing patient care in non-clinical areas safely and efficiently’, *Emergency Nurse*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7748/en.2023.e2187
Wise, J. (2020) ‘Patient safety: NHS trusts report multiple risks linked to lack of staff and funding’, *BMJ*, 371. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3885
Wise, J. (2025) ‘Scale of NHS’s “corridor care” is revealed in Royal College of Nursing report’, *BMJ*, 388. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r99
