Evidence Hub

Paediatric escalation area and corridor care in the Emergency Department, a secondary analysis of the UNCORKED study

C. Anakebe, D. R. Owens, D. Roland, F. Birse, R. McHenry, B. Clarke, T. Roberts, Trainee Emergency Research Network Group

medRxiv, 2026

104 participants

Abstract

Objective: To describe the use of, and outcomes following, Emergency Department (ED) escalation area care among children.

Design: Two-stage prospective multicentre observational study. Stage one was a cross-sectional snapshot study reporting the point prevalence of escalation area care; stage two was an observational cohort study of eligible participants present in the EDs during snapshots.

Setting: 5 snapshots of 96 type 1 UK EDs. 83/96 (86.5%) of sites were mixed EDs and 13 sites were paediatric-only EDs.

Patients: Patient level data was collected on those who experienced escalation area care and/or were admitted.

Outcomes: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients cared for in escalation areas in paediatric-only EDs. Secondary outcomes were demographics, length of stay (LOS), 28-day mortality, type of escalation area experienced and time in escalation areas in all ED types; stratified by escalation area experience.

Results: 6.6% (n=75/1132) of patients in paediatric-only EDs were receiving escalation area care during the study snapshots, the majority of this occurred in a minority of departments. Across all ED types, 15.4% (n=104/675) of admitted children experienced escalation area care during their ED stay. 124/244 (50.8%) of those cared for in escalation areas were cared for in a non-clinical area such as a corridor. 9.6% (n=8/83) of mixed EDs reported caring for adults in paediatric areas. Three children died within 28 days; all admitted to hospital without…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 104 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free