ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Investigating changes in care patterns and lessons learned during COVID-19 pandemic - an exploratory, convergent mixed method study at two university emergency departments in Germany.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic posed particular challenges for medical staff in emergency departments (ED). With the end of the pandemic declared by the WHO, the focus shifted to the pandemic preparedness of EDs. The present study aims to identify changes in care patterns in emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic and derive lessons learned for future health crises.
methodsAn exploratory, convergent mixed method design was conducted. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with ED staff. The focus was on their perspectives and perceived experiences of changes in work routines as well as lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. In parallel, routine data from ED patients were descriptively analyzed to examine differences in ED utilization, care pattern and patient flow during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to 2019. Group comparisons and mixed-effects models were used to identify changed patterns and their respective drivers.
resultsSixteen interviews and 56,842 patient records were analyzed. Overall, a decline in patient numbers was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as changes in length of stay, referrals to ICU and in-hospital mortality compared to 2019. But rapid adjustments required and the accompanying flood of information led to an increased workload. Medical care in the ED was shaped by two overarching dilemmas: (1) Providing optimal care while conserving resources, (2) Delivering optimal treatment in compliance with hygiene guidelines. A shift in self-perception – from helpers to endangerers – had to be newly integrated into role understanding and patient care. To enhance the preparedness of the ED for future pandemics, six key areas have been identified: (1) Avoid Information overload and improve communication, (2) Staff safety and emotional support, (3) Early detection of infections, (4) Hygienic distancing, (5) Resource management in patient care, (6) Efficient discharge management.
conclusionsTo enhance the pandemic preparedness of EDs, an interdisciplinary approach was identified as crucial. This involves a combination of organizational adaptations, effective communication pathways, and emotional support for medical staff for advancing response capacity, resilience, and operational adaptability amidst future pandemics. REGISTRATION: www.drks.de DRKS00023117. Registered 21/09/2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.