Overcrowding with associated delays in patient care is a problem faced by emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. ED overcrowding can be the result of poor ED department design and prolonged throughput due to staffing, ancillary service performance, and flow processes. As such, the problem may be addressed by process improvements within the ED. A broad body of literature demonstrates that ED overcrowding can be a function of hospital capacity rather than an ED specific issue. Lack of institutional capacity leads to boarding in the ED with resultant ED crowding. This is a problem not solvable by the ED and must be addressed as an institution-wide problem. This paper discusses the causes of ED overcrowding, provides a brief overview of the drastic consequences, and discusses possible cures that have been successfully implemented.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a huge challenge to healthcare systems and their personnel worldwide. The study of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCW), through prevalence studies, will let us know viral expansion, individuals at most risk and the most exposed areas in healthcare organizations. The aim of this study is to gauge the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in our hospital workforce and identify groups and areas at increased risk. Methods and findings This is a cross-sectional and incidence study carried out on healthcare workers based on molecular and serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 3013 HCW invited to participate, 2439 (80.9%) were recruited, including 674 (22.4%) who had previously consulted at the Occupational Health Service (OHS) for confirmed exposure and/or presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. A total of 411 (16.9%) and 264 (10.8%) healthcare workers were SARS-CoV-2 IgG and rRT-PCR positive, respectively. The cumulative prevalence considering all studies (IgG positive HCW and/or rRT-PCR positive detection) was 485 (19.9%). SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive patients in whom the virus was not detected were 221 (9.1%); up to 151 of them (68.3%) did not report any compatible symptoms nor consult at the OHS for this reason. Men became more infected than women (25% vs 18.5%, p = 0.0009), including when data were also classified by age. COVID-19 cumulative prevalence among the HCW assigned to medical departments was higher (25.2%) than others, as well as among medical staff (25.4%) compared with other professional categories (p<0.01). Conclusions The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCW of our centre has been 19.9%. Doctors and medical services personnel have had the highest prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but many of them have not presented compatible symptoms. This emphasizes the performance of continuous surveillance methods of the most exposed health personnel and not only based on the appearance of symptoms.

No abstract

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a huge challenge to healthcare systems and their personnel worldwide. The study of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers, through prevalence studies, will let us know viral expansion, individuals at most risk and the most exposed areas. The aim of this study is to gauge the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in our hospital workforce and identify groups and areas at increased risk. Methods and Findings. This is a cross-sectional and longitudinal study carried out on healthcare workers based on molecular and serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 3013 HCW invited to participate, finally 2439 (80.9%) were recruited, including 674 (22.4%) who had previously consulted at the OHS for confirmed exposure and/or presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. A total of 411 (16.9%) and 264 (10.8%) healthcare workers were SARS-CoV-2 IgG and rRT-PCR positive, respectively. The cumulative prevalence considering all studies (IgG positive HCW and/or rRT-PCR positive detection) has been 485 (19.9%). SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive patients in whom the virus was not detected were 221 (9.1%); up to 151 of them (68.3%) did not report any compatible symptoms nor consult at the OHS for this reason. Men became more infected than women (25% vs 18.5%, p=0.0009), including when data were also classified by age. COVID-19 cumulative prevalence among the HCW assigned to medical departments was higher (25.2%) than others, as well as among medical staff (25.4%) compared with other professional categories (p<0.01). Conclusions. Global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCW of our centre has been 19.9%. Doctors and medical services personnel have had the highest prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but many of them have not presented compatible symptoms. This emphasizes the performance of continuous surveillance methods of the most exposed health personnel and not only based on the appearance of symptoms.

No abstract