Search the hub

On the 8th January 2026, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) published a new report looking at patient safety risks associated with the use of temporary care environments, more commonly referred to as corridor care. In this article, Patient Safety Learning sets out its reflections on the report’s findings. HSSIB investigates patient safety concerns across the NHS in England and in independent healthcare settings where safety learning could help to improve NHS care. Their latest report, Patient care in temporary care environments, provides a safety observation and learning prompts for organisations to consider when using temporary care environments. In this article we will use the more commonly known description, ‘corridor care’.[1] By this we mean care being provided to patients in corridors, non-clinical areas or unsuitable clinical areas because of a lack of hospital bed capacity. Patient Safety Learning has raised many safety concerns about corridor care, so we welcome HSSIB undertaking this investigation. We contributed to this report during its consultation stage, and in this article, we set out our reflections on the findings. HSSIB report Corridor care is becoming normalised in the NHS. The persistence of this is well documented, both in ongoing media coverage and more detailed assessments from organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), Royal College of Emergency Medicine and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Emergency Care.[2] [3] [4] [5] At Patient Safety Learning in the past year we have also been highlighting the key patient safety issues associated with this in a series of blogs on the hub. This new report from HSSIB provides further evidence of the ongoing challenges posed by corridor care in the NHS. Their investigation specifically looked at acute hospitals in England and highlighted a range of risks to patient safety, including: Increased infection risk. A lack of piped oxygen and suction. Insufficient staff for satisfactory staff-to-patient ratios. Compromised response to medical and fire emergencies. Difficulties in monitoring patients and recognising deterioration. Increased risk of pressure damage or falls. They point to this particularly in the case of frail and older patients who may be located in a space that is out of direct sight and without a call bell. An increased risk of delirium, in particular for older patients who may find a temporary care environment disorientating. Specific to mental health patients, the increased risk that they may be able to abscond or access items for self-harm due to limitations in visibility in some environments. Following on from their investigation findings, HSSIB make the following safety observation: “NHS regional and national organisations can improve patient safety by enhancing understanding of the use of temporary care environments across all hospital settings. This may include agreeing definitions of temporary care environments and enhanced information gathering on their use and impact on patient safety.” Their report includes a series of local-level learning prompts for acute hospitals. These are intended to help organisations and staff identify and think about how to respond to specific patient safety concerns related to corridor care. Patient Safety Learning’s reflections We believe that corridor care should be avoided whenever possible. Even in the context of the ongoing immense pressures being faced by the health service, this should not be normalised. In situations where this is unavoidable, there clearly needs to be guidance and safeguards put in place to minimise risks as far as possible. We do not think care in this physical context can ever really be characterised as good quality care. Looking at the findings of HSSIB’s latest report, we would highlight the following issues for consideration: 1. Board oversight We welcome the inclusion by HSSIB of local-level learning prompts in this report to help acute hospitals proactively engage with the risks associated with corridor care. We would emphasise that in following such prompts, it is also important that there is clear oversight and leadership at Board level of these issues. This could entail designating an executive lead to coordinate the oversee corridor care. This would allow for regular reporting to the Board on this issue, including the sharing of information on incidents of patient harm associated with corridor care. This high-level organisational engagement is vital in our view. Without clarity of ownership and accountability for monitoring, managing and mitigating risks, patient safety could be compromised. 2. Reporting incidences of corridor care There is currently no public reporting of incidents of corridor care. In their report HSSIB notes that varying definitions across organisations has complicated efforts to do this, stating: “The absence of consistent reporting frameworks means that the impact of temporary care environments on patient safety may be poorly understood. This lack of visibility may contribute to inconsistencies in how data is interpreted and used, resulting in an incomplete picture of the risks and outcomes associated with these environments.” Last winter the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and NHS England said they would start to data on the number of patients who receive care corridor care. To date, there remains no confirmation nationally when this will begin. We urge DHSC and NHS England to deliver this commitment now. This data should be transparently published and released at regular intervals. 3. Capturing the patient safety consequences As well as regular reporting of incidences of corridor care, we also need to better understand the impact on patient safety. We believe that the NHS needs to give further consideration as to how incidents of avoidable harm, where corridor care is a contributory factor, are captured. There should be a clear picture of the impact this is having and how organisations are mitigating risks to patients and staff. HSSIB’s report notes that: “… there were limited reported patient safety incidents where the temporary care environment itself was recorded as a factor.” We think this is likely to be a reflection of existing reporting systems not capturing this accurately, or corridor care not being reported as a causal factor for other reasons, rather than it not being an influencing factor. In a blog last year, we outlined some of the challenges that the growing prevalence of corridor care poses to reporting and acting on patient safety concerns in the NHS.[6] HSSIB also note that their investigation: “…found that direct reports of patient safety concerns from patients was limited.” Again, we would suggest that this is not necessarily evidence of an absence of concerns, but may be the result of patients: not being aware of patient safety risks around them in these circumstances. potentially being unwilling to raise these issues as formal patient safety concerns, or unaware of how best to approach this. being less able to report or recognise these issues due to types of conditions they may have, e.g. high acuity patients, patients with dementia etc. 4. Adaptations to mitigate risks HSSIB’s report includes details of how hospitals are considering and mitigating the patient safety risks associated with corridor care. It includes specific examples of where there has been investment into physical changes to reflect the ongoing reality of corridor care. One such case highlighted is of an emergency department corridor where electric points and emergency call bells have been added. However, in some instances it also found: “Concerns around normalising the use of temporary care environments can present a barrier to trusts putting all the possible patient safety mitigations in place when using temporary care environments.” The desire not to normalise corridor care is fully understandable. However, it seems a perverse outcome that this in itself may be a barrier to making changes that lead to safer care, particularly when there is no choice but to use these environments. We think that there needs to be an honest debate about what good (or at least ‘less bad’) practice is, and for appropriate action always to be taken to reduce the risk of unsafe care. Need for national action Corridor care is a complex issue that is the result of a range of systemic problems faced by the health and care sector. While this report from HSSIB focuses primarily on local level changes, Patient Safety Learning believes there needs to be greater focus on what more can be done at a national level. In December 2025, NHS England published new guidance setting out principles for providing corridor care in hospitals.[7] However, as reflected on in a blog by our Associate Director Claire Cox, there exists a significant gap between policy and practice. “… this guidance is a near-perfect example of “work as imagined rather than work as done”. It is full of “shoulds”. Care should be to the same standard as on wards. Corridor care should only ever be used in absolute emergencies. Boards should have oversight. Staff should be supported. Patient safety should be paramount. Of course it should. No one working in the NHS disagrees with any of that. The problem is that what is being described simply does not reflect reality.”[8] National action to tackle corridor care needs to go beyond issuing guidance. There is no quick fix to achieve this, it requires system leaders to get to grips with these issues and, supported by evidence and research, put in place plans to address them. HSSIB’s report briefly references the regulatory role of the Care Quality Commission (CQC), noting the latter’s concerns about the use and normalisation of corridor care. We also think it would be helpful to have greater clarity around how the CQC is looking at corridor care in its inspection processes. Specifically, what actions it expects Trusts to take, when providing corridor care, to fulfil their Regulation 12 requirement to “prevent people from receiving unsafe care and treatment and prevent avoidable harm or risk of harm”. Looking ahead, the 10 Year Health Plan states an intention to end corridor care as part of its shift towards a Neighbourhood Health Service.[9] If its ambition to ensure care happens as locally as it can is fulfilled in the long term, the pressure on hospital bed capacity that drives corridor care could reduce. However, significant detail of what this transition will involve, and at what pace it will be achieved, has yet to be made available. In the meantime, we believe more could be done now to support individuals and organisations delivering corridor care. Building on the local-level learning prompts in this report, we think there should be greater national support for sharing of good practice resources and case studies, so organisations can learn from each other. This could include both the specific steps organisations are taking steps to mitigate the patient safety risks, as well as how they are responding to and addressing staff concerns about working in these environments. Share your experience Do you have experience of corridor care either as a patient or a healthcare professional? What impact have you seen on patient safety? You can comment below (sign up here for free first) or email the editorial team at [email protected] References HSSIB. Patient care in temporary care environments. 8 January 2026. The Guardian. A&E in ‘big trouble’ because of ‘normalised’ corridor care, says leading UK medic. 30 December 2025. Health Service Journal. ‘Corridor care’ approaches 1m cases a year. 4 December 2025. Royal College of Nursing. On the frontline of the UK’s corridor care crisis, 16 January 2025. APPG on Emergency Care. Corridor care. November 2025. Clare Wade. The crisis of corridor care in the NHS: patient safety concerns and incident reporting. 6 February 2025. NHS England. Principles for providing patient care in corridors. 11 December 2025. Claire Cox. Corridor care guidance needs to move beyond what “should” happen and grapple honestly with why it isn’t. 18 December 2025. Department of Health and Social Care. 10 Year Health Plan for England: fit for the future. 3 July 2025.

Corridor care is a term used to describe the practice of providing medical attention to patients in hallways or other non-designated clinical areas due to overcrowding or resource shortages. In a series of blogs on the hub, we have been highlighting some of the key patient safety issues surrounding corridor care. On the 11 December 2025, NHS England published new guidance Principles for providing patient care in corridors. This replaced the previous guidance published last September, which spoke about providing safe and good quality care in “temporary escalation spaces”. The new guidance aims to support point-of-care staff in delivering the safest possible care when corridor care has been deemed unavoidable. In this blog, Patient Safety Learning’s Associate Director and nurse, Claire Cox reflects on this guidance and sets out the need for national action to tackle this persistent problem. At the very least, we should welcome the retirement of that Orwellian phrase “temporary escalation space”. This was a linguistic sleight of hand that softened the reality of what was actually happening. Calling it corridor care is more honest, even if honesty alone does not make it safer. The new guidance also includes some welcome elements: It explicitly states that corridor care is unacceptable and must not be normalised. It recognises the risk of harm and references analyses from the Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Emergency Medicine. They have been clear for some time about the dangers to patients and staff alike. It talks about dignity, safety, leadership oversight, escalation, and governance. However, despite these positive additions, this guidance is a near-perfect example of “work as imagined rather than work as done”. It is full of “shoulds”. Care should be to the same standard as on wards. Corridor care should only ever be used in absolute emergencies. Boards should have oversight. Staff should be supported. Patient safety should be paramount. Of course it should. No one working in the NHS disagrees with any of that. The problem is that what is being described simply does not reflect reality. The gap between policy and practice The guidance features a list of patient groups who must never be cared for in a corridor, including but not limited to: Patients who are severely frail. Patients with physical disabilities. Patients who have dementia, confusion or delirium. Any patient with a high National Early Warning Score (NEWS) scores. NEWS is a standardised tool for recording and score changes to acutely ill patients. However, many patients who fall into these groups are often the core demographic of emergency departments (EDs). EDs are full of elderly, frail, confused, high-acuity patients. To say they must never be in corridors is to fundamentally misunderstand the pressure profile of modern emergency care. The new guidance also states that corridor care should only ever be used in “absolute emergencies”. If you speak to frontline staff working in EDs in England currently, that description has applied almost every day for the past 18 months. When the exceptional becomes routine, the language collapses under the weight of reality. The guidance insists that corridor care must not be normalised. Staff already know this. They have known it for years. They don’t need to be told again that this is unsafe, undignified, and wrong. They live that truth every shift. What they need is help to stop it happening. Standards without means are not solutions The document includes a number of principles for “ensuring patients receive the same standard of care as those in allocated in clinical spaces”. However, by its very nature, asking staff to deliver ward-level standards of care in these environments is intrinsically impossible. Privacy, infection control, observation, documentation, safe staffing, patient dignity - all of these are harder, and some are fundamentally compromised, in corridors by design. Yes, more can always be done locally to mitigate harm. But this guidance does not meaningfully explain how to fix the problem. There is nothing substantial on capacity, flow, delayed discharges, social care failure, or the structural mismatch between demand and beds. There is no roadmap, no accountability for system-level causes, and no recognition that corridor care is not a behavioural failure by trusts or staff, but a predictable outcome of prolonged system saturation. Instead, the centre appears to be “doing something” by issuing guidance. Setting expectations that cannot be fully met, while the risk and moral burden remain with staff providing frontline services and their organisational leaders. The risk of moral injury There is a real danger here. When guidance describes an idealised version of care that staff cannot deliver despite their best efforts, it doesn’t improve safety - it deepens moral injury. It tells people they are failing, even when the system has already failed them and their patients. Being clear that corridor care is unacceptable is important. Being honest about harm is important. But clarity without solutions is not leadership. Naming the problem is not the same as fixing It Retiring the temporary escalation space label is progress. Acknowledging patient harm is progress. But progress stops short when there is no serious engagement with the underlying causes. Or a credible plan to eliminate corridor care rather than simply restate that it should not exist. Corridor care is not happening because staff don’t understand the principles. It is happening because the system has run out of space, time, and slack. To have a significant impact, guidance such as this needs to move beyond what should happen and grapple honestly with why it isn’t. Otherwise documents like this will remain well-intentioned, rhetorically correct - but offer little practical help to staff working on the frontline. What meaningful national action could look like If corridor care is truly unacceptable, national action must go beyond issuing guidance that simply restates what is already well understood. Corridor care is not a local failure of standards or leadership; it is the predictable consequence of a system that has been operating beyond capacity for years. Meaningful action requires honesty about the underlying causes: insufficient staffed beds, delayed discharge, fragile social care, and blocked patient flow. It also means aligning regulation with operational reality, rather than condemning corridor care while tacitly accepting the conditions that make it inevitable. Above all, this requires decisive action on capacity across acute beds, primary care, community provision, social care, the independent sector, and ambulance services, combined with genuine collaboration and co-design across the whole system - including Integrated Care Boards, trusts, providers, and the public. Local leaders must work together to share effective approaches for mitigating risk, reducing the need for corridor care, and designing services that are safe, responsive, and sustainable. Guidance can describe what good looks like. Only national leadership, working in partnership with local systems, primary care, ambulance trusts, the independent sector, and the public, can create the conditions in which it may be possible. (Photo is a head and shoulders image of Claire Cox looking at the camera, wearing her nursing uniform) Related reading How corridor care in the NHS is affecting safety culture (A blog by Claire Cox, 27 January 2025) The crisis of corridor care in the NHS: patient safety concerns and incident reporting (A blog by Clare Wade, 6 February 2025) Corridor care: are the health and safety risks being addressed? (A blog by Claire Cox, 24 April 2025) Share your experience Do you have experience of corridor care either as a patient or a healthcare professional? What impact have you seen on patient safety? You can comment below (sign up here for free first) or email the editorial team at [email protected]