Emergency department crowding: An examination of older adults and vulnerability
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".