This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background/Objectives: Emergency department (ED) attendance may change differently from subsequent hospital utilisation during healthcare disruptions. We compared two historical crisis episodes within one Korean regional emergency medical centre. Methods: Four calendar-aligned 224-day windows before and after the onset of COVID-19 and the 2024 workforce disruption were analysed using episode-by-phase interactions. Modified Poisson models used patient-and-day two-way clustered variance. Less-conditioned and initial-acuity-conditioned models were compared. Daily counts used calendar-lag autocorrelation-consistent variance. Source-data audits, full-period segmented analyses and alternative-baseline sensitivities were added. Results: The windows included 83,998 visits by 66,096 patients after source-data recoding. The ratio of relative changes was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68–0.78) for daily visits, 1.28 (1.19–1.37) for transfer-in presentation and 1.44 (1.33–1.55) for acuity-conditioned ICU admission. EMS arrival increased more during COVID-19, but the corrected physiological composite showed no clear between-episode contrast. ED-origin ICU admissions/day were 9.24 before and 9.67 during the workforce episode; the primary ratio of incidence rate ratios was 1.13 (1.05–1.22), but the prior-calendar-year sensitivity included the null (1.06, 0.97–1.15). Workforce-period mortality associations differed before and after acuity conditioning, with adjusted risk ratios of 1.28 (1.10–1.49) and 1.06 (0.92–1.22), respectively. Conclusions: Attendance contracted more than ED-origin ICU admission volume during the observed workforce episode. These findings describe utilisation, not measured capacity pressure, and depend partly on baseline and adjustment choices. The contribution is a multidimensional approach to utilisation surveillance, not universal crisis-specific effects or evidence of unchanged survival.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: