Search the hub

The images on the left highlight the increased delays in ambulance responses and the potentially catastrophic consequences. Equally, the panic-inducing headlines of measures brought in to resolve the crisis. I work on the healthcare frontline and I’d like to share my experience of the 'Wait 45' policy in my trust and the impact it is having. Implementation of a new policy In December 2024, all ambulance trusts in England were told to implement a new policy, ‘Release to Respond’, also known as the ‘Wait 45’ policy, which means ambulances will only wait at Emergency Departments (ED) for 45 minutes before patients are left and the crews make their way to the next call. This was initiated following increasing waits for crews to handover patients to the ED. These waits were not inconsiderable periods of time, with many reports of crews spending their entire shift parked outside the ED with just one patient. This has resulted in some appalling headlines—for example, elderly people being left waiting for up to 15 hours for an ambulance to arrive and people having cardiac arrests where ambulances are not available to respond. Based on this, the adoption of the ’Release to Respond' policy makes sense. However, the introduction of this policy has been met with some scepticism and equally horrendous headlines about patients being dumped while crews run. The policy states that crews will not dump and run, and that handovers will be given, and patients will be placed on a chair, trolley or wheelchair in a dedicated space. But this policy is another example of not identifying the whole problem and bringing in a measure that only addresses the needs of one part of the healthcare system, while making it considerably worse for other parts! What is the point of an integrated care system (ICS) and board (ICB) if they do not look at an integrated intervention to address this situation? What is the reality of the ’Wait 45’ policy? The Wait 45 policy in my trust has completely changed the way the ED manages patients. 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. It used to be that corridor care was for patients who had been seen, had a plan and who were either waiting to go home or for a bed on a ward. Now, in my trust, the corridor is for undifferentiated patients (patients who present with symptoms that have not yet been diagnosed or categorised) that come in directly from the ambulances. This has increased the risk to patients and staff. The corridor is used as soon as the department is full and then, only when the corridor is full to capacity, does the Wait 45 policy get initiated. At this point it is almost guaranteed that the corridor will need additional staffing from somewhere, while the first crew need to wait their 45 minutes—the hospital now has 45 minutes to find these additional staff otherwise the nurse: patient ratio increases in the corridor. The ratios of nurse to patients differs depending on the area of the hospital: in major treatment areas it is 1:4 but in the corridor it is 1:6; however, there is no upper limit of patients in the corridor and staff are often moved from other in-patient areas to work in the ED where they are invariably working in the corridor. These nurses will not have a ED background and will find it challenging and may miss the subtle signs that an experienced ED nurse may spot. There is often a lack of support for nurses in the corridor, leaving additional staff having to rely on their previous experience and judgement to guide them on what needs to be done. Handover criteria not being met Ambulance trust and the acute trust staff should at handover discuss the criteria for placing patients in a corridor—i.e., patients are supposed to be independent, able to move themselves to the toilet, be clinically stable and not have an infectious presentation However, in my experience this criteria is often not followed, as highlighted in the following examples I have seen and heard: Suspected neutropenic patients placed in the corridor. These patients have a low neutrophil count (a type of white blood cell) and are more vulnerable to infections. The concern for those on immunosuppressants seems to be non-existent now; there was a significant concern during the Covid-19 pandemic, but now being immunosuppressed is met with a tut, roll of the eyes and a shrug of the shoulders. It rarely features in handovers. Ambulance crews handing over patients that needed a hoist transfer at their nursing home; it is clearly not appropriate to care for these patients in a corridor where they should be mobile to use bedpans or commodes. Elderly patients who have fallen—either with significant trauma or with no apparent injuries—placed in the corridor. One patient had pain in their neck and received a trauma CT scan in the corridor—surely this patient should not have been in a corridor in the first place! Patients with diarrhoea and vomiting placed in the corridor, sometimes next to the neutropenic patients. Those with significant respiratory symptoms suggestive of influenza or Covid-19 placed in the corridor, despite the known risks to those that are in the corridor with them. I have even had a patient with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 10 (this is a tool that healthcare providers use to measure decreases in consciousness) handed over to the corridor… Wouldn’t resuscitation be a better location for them? Unintended consequences It is easy to understand why ‘Release to Respond’ policies are needed. With no external pressure, it appeared that many trusts lacked the willingness to investigate changes to reduce the overcrowding in the ED. However, while I recognise that the ambulance trusts need to have their staff available and not tied up at hospitals, this is making the ED unsafe. Another unintended consequence of these policies is that the working relationships between the ED nurses and the ambulance crews has deteriorated. I have noticed an increasing lack of willingness to help each other and incivility is growing. Asking simple questions results in dirty looks and aggressive questioning about ’who are you‘. The natural feeling is now one of defence, protecting each other against comments, pulling back into areas of comfort and knowledge. The standard replies are now ‘no’ and a feeling that this is not my problem or my fault. Unilateral measures that do not address the whole problem I cannot help but think implementing a unilateral solution like the ‘Release to Respond’ policy is based entirely on ‘work as imagined’ and benefits only one part of a highly complex area. It places additional burdens on already overstretched resources. The worst of which is that EDs are still seen as being made of elastic, with the ability to continually expand even when the evidence shows every hospital is beyond capacity every day of the year! When I first heard about ICSs and ICBs, I really hoped we would start to see a time of collaboration, working together to solve some of the issues within healthcare. Sadly, there does not yet seem to have been a change. In fact, it feels very much that we renamed but stayed the same. Probably, because all that has happened since the ICSs were introduced is restructuring after restructuring. They are not being allowed to work. Please, don’t get me wrong. I can see why these policies are in place. If I called an ambulance, I would like it to be available to respond and unfortunately currently they are not and have not been for a while. But I cannot help but think that until the ICS and regional NHS organisations take ownership of these problems, and all the stakeholders are represented at the table to analyse, design, implement and, most important of all, EVALUATE an intervention, we are condemned to keep implementing unilateral measures that do not address the whole problem. Further reading on the hub The crisis of corridor care in the NHS: patient safety concerns and incident reporting A silent safety scandal: A nurse’s first-hand account of a corridor nursing shift A nurse's response to the NHSE guidance on their principles for providing safe and good quality care in temporary escalation spaces How corridor care in the NHS is affecting safety culture: A blog by Claire Cox Share your insights 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]