Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38476026›Full record

ArticleNursing ethics2025

Emergency department crowding: An examination of older adults and vulnerability.

Meghan MacIsaac, Elizabeth Peter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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

2 authors.

Meghan MacIsaacUniversity of Toronto.ORCID 0009-0007-0505-1594
Elizabeth PeterUniversity of Toronto.ORCID 0000-0002-8155-216X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emergency departments in many nations worldwide have been struggling for many years with crowding and the subsequent provision of care in hallways and other unconventional spaces. While this issue has been investigated and analyzed from multiple perspectives, the ethical dimensions of the place of emergency department care have been underexamined. Specifically, the impacts of the place of care on patients and their caregivers have not been robustly explored in the literature. In this article, a feminist ethics and human geography framing is utilized to argue that care provision in open and unconventional spaces in the emergency department can be unethical, as vulnerability can be amplified by the place of care for patients and their caregivers. The situational and pathogenic vulnerability of patients can be heightened by the place of the emergency department and by the constraints to healthcare providers' capacity to promote patient comfort, privacy, communication, and autonomy in this setting. The arrangements of care in the emergency department are of particular concern for older adults given the potential increased risks for vulnerability in this population. As such, hallway healthcare can reflect the normalized inequities of structural ageism. Recommendations are provided to address this complicated ethical issue, including making visible the moral experiences of patients and their caregivers, as well as those of healthcare providers in the emergency department, advocating for a systems-level accounting for the needs of older adults in the emergency department and more broadly in healthcare, as well as highlighting the need for further research to examine how to foster autonomy and care in the emergency department to reduce the risk for vulnerabilities.

Indexed as

CrowdingEmergency Service, HospitalVulnerable PopulationsAgedFemaleHumansEmergency departmentethicsfeministgeographyolder adultsvulnerability

Identifiers

PMID38476026
PMCPMC11771088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.