theguardian.com
Over 1 Million Older People Face 12+ Hour A&E Waits in England
Over 1.15 million people aged 60+ in England waited over 12 hours in A&E in 2024, up from 991,068 in 2023 and 305,619 in 2019, with many experiencing degrading conditions and lacking vital checks, according to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine.
- How do age and inadequate screening practices in A&E contribute to the disproportionate effect of long waits on older patients?
- The risk of a 12-hour A&E wait in England rises with age, reaching 33% for those aged 90+. This increase correlates with a lack of vital checks for older patients; only 16% of those over 75 were screened for delirium, and less than half were screened for fall risk. This points to systemic issues affecting vulnerable populations.
- What is the immediate impact of the over 1.15 million older people in England facing 12+ hour A&E waits, and what are the specific consequences for patient safety and well-being?
- In 2024, over 1.15 million people aged 60 and over in England waited more than 12 hours in A&E, a significant increase from 991,068 in 2023 and 305,619 in 2019. Many faced "degrading and dehumanising" conditions, highlighting a critical failure in patient care.
- What systemic changes are needed to prevent the continued disproportionate impact of long A&E waits on older people in England, and what are the potential long-term consequences of inaction?
- The RCEM recommends "front door frailty screening" in every A&E department to mitigate the disproportionate impact on older people. Without prioritizing A&E improvements and addressing systemic failures, long waits will continue to endanger patients, particularly the elderly, and exacerbate existing health inequalities.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue primarily from the perspective of the patients and medical professionals, emphasizing the negative consequences of long waits. While it includes a government response, the framing emphasizes the severity of the problem and the inadequacy of current solutions, potentially influencing reader perception towards a negative view of the government's efforts. The use of phrases such as "degrading and dehumanising" in the first paragraph sets a negative tone.
Language Bias
The language used is largely emotive, using words like "degrading," "dehumanizing," and "alarming." While these accurately reflect the experiences described, they contribute to a negative tone and may not present a fully balanced picture. More neutral alternatives could include "difficult," "uncomfortable," and "concerning." The repeated use of phrases highlighting the suffering of elderly patients reinforces the negative aspects.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative experiences of older patients in A&E, but omits discussion of potential mitigating factors, such as staffing shortages, funding constraints, or the overall capacity of the healthcare system. While the article mentions government investment, it doesn't delve into the complexities of resource allocation or the effectiveness of current strategies. This omission could lead readers to assume the problem is solely a result of systemic failure without considering external pressures.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between the failing healthcare system and the government's investment, without acknowledging the multifaceted nature of the problem. It suggests that increased funding alone will solve the issue, overlooking other potential contributing factors and solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights significant delays in A&E for older people in England, leading to potential harm and increased mortality risk. Long waits, lack of vital checks (delirium, falls), and unsuitable care settings negatively impact their health and well-being. This directly contradicts SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.