Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33500288›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Hospital bed capacity and usage across secondary healthcare providers in England during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive analysis.

Bilal Akhter Mateen, Harrison Wilde, John M Dennis, Andrew Duncan, Nick Thomas, Andrew McGovern, Spiros Denaxas, Matt Keeling, Sebastian Vollmer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Bilal Akhter MateenWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK bilal.mateen@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0003-4423-6472
Harrison WildeDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4391-8204
John M DennisThe Institute of Biomedical & Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7171-732X
Andrew DuncanThe Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
Nick ThomasThe Institute of Biomedical & Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Andrew McGovernThe Institute of Biomedical & Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Spiros DenaxasThe Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9612-7791
Matt KeelingThe Zeeman Institute for Systems Biology & Infectious Disease Epidemiology Research, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sebastian VollmerThe Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
University of Exeter · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBThe Alan Turing Institute · GBInstitute for Systems Biology · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_20030Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn this study, we describe the pattern of bed occupancy across England during the peak of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

designDescriptive survey.

settingAll non-specialist secondary care providers in England from 27 March27to 5 June 2020.

participantsAcute (non-specialist) trusts with a type 1 (ie, 24 hours/day, consultant-led) accident and emergency department (n=125), Nightingale (field) hospitals (n=7) and independent sector secondary care providers (n=195).

main outcome measuresTwo thresholds for 'safe occupancy' were used: 85% as per the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and 92% as per NHS Improvement.

resultsAt peak availability, there were 2711 additional beds compatible with mechanical ventilation across England, reflecting a 53% increase in capacity, and occupancy never exceeded 62%. A consequence of the repurposing of beds meant that at the trough there were 8.7% (8508) fewer general and acute beds across England, but occupancy never exceeded 72%. The closest to full occupancy of general and acute bed (surge) capacity that any trust in England reached was 99.8% . For beds compatible with mechanical ventilation there were 326 trust-days (3.7%) spent above 85% of surge capacity and 154 trust-days (1.8%) spent above 92%. 23 trusts spent a cumulative 81 days at 100% saturation of their surge ventilator bed capacity (median number of days per trust=1, range: 1-17). However, only three sustainability and transformation partnerships (aggregates of geographically co-located trusts) reached 100% saturation of their mechanical ventilation beds.

conclusionsThroughout the first wave of the pandemic, an adequate supply of all bed types existed at a national level. However, due to an unequal distribution of bed utilisation, many trusts spent a significant period operating above 'safe-occupancy' thresholds despite substantial capacity in geographically co-located trusts, a key operational issue to address in preparing for future waves.

Indexed as

Hospital Bed CapacitySurge CapacityBed OccupancyCOVID-19EnglandHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansIntensive Care UnitsSARS-CoV-2State MedicineVentilators, MechanicalCOVID-19health policyintensive & critical carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID33500288
PMCPMC7843315
OpenAlexW3121923922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.