In the Commons debate on the chronic problem of “corridor care” in the NHS, there was no shortage of words on what the problem is, and how unacceptable it is from the points of view of patients, staff and the wider NHS system, even if there are disagreements on how it was caused and how to put it right.
Opening the debate Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP admitted an important key fact: “The reality is that corridor care is happening in every corner of the country.”
However, this reality is not reflected in the official data, which was first published in June. Two major trusts (University Hospitals Birmingham and Bedfordshire Hospitals) reported no data at all, and 30 trusts claimed to have had not a single incidence of corridor care in May. This is hard to believe.
The new NHS data show that there were, on average, 2,910 patients each day in May being cared for in corridors, cupboards, clinics, coffee shops and other unsuitable areas (2,241 patients experiencing ‘corridor care’ plus a daily average of 669 patients parked outside of bed spaces in hospital wards, experiencing the equivalent of corridor care – the system previous branded as “boarding”).
The highest number of corridor care incidents, reported by London North West (covering Ealing and Northwick Park Hospitals) is 100 per day (equivalent to 36,000 per year). The lowest is, of course, an implausible zero. The average of the 91 trusts reporting numbers is 25 patients per day (9,000 per year), while the average including the 27 zero figures comes down to just 19.
Even small numbers being cared for in inappropriate placings are a problem. Each of the cases, even if there are only a few, is unsafe and a misery for patients, and should be a shocking exception: sadly it seems to be the daily reality for many staff in the worst-afflicted hospitals.
The wide variation (and gaps) in data cast doubt on the usefulness and accuracy of the “average” figure of 2,910 patients a day treated in corridors/unsuitable spaces, with 69,469 instances of corridor care in emergency departments in May 2026 and 20,732 elsewhere in hospitals – a total of 90,201 for the month, (equivalent to 1.08m per year).
The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) noted at once that the statistics present an over-rosy picture:
“That’s roughly equal to one in 21 ED attendances, significantly less than the results of RCEM’s 2025 survey of Clinical Leads in England – which found that on a given day in August, one in five UK ED patients experienced corridor care.”
The RCEM, which has long argued for action on corridor care and delays in admitting emergency patients, has warned that
“… we remain doubtful about the current accuracy and scope of this data – as well as the potential for trusts ‘gaming’ the system.
“Corridor care is a national scandal, and a problem which policymakers have acknowledged has become normalised. Yet, in some areas, the data seems low. Many of our members will likely feel that the data has not captured their day to day reality.
“We remain sceptical whether NHS England’s definition of corridor care, which underpins today’s data, is up to the job of capturing the true scale of the problem. We are concerned it is open to gaming and variable interpretation.”
The RCEM has raised two main concerns about the definition: that it does not specifically include patients waiting for admission in areas not designated as being part of the ED (Emergency Department), waiting in spaces supposedly designated for “rapid assessment”, or potentially left on chairs in waiting rooms. And that:
“the 45-minute threshold is hard to justify. We are concerned that the definition, as it stands, will encourage manipulation of figures to make things look better than they are. Sadly, we have seen this happen so often we are expecting to see it again.”
It seems that in the first batch of statistics at least some trusts may have manipulated the figures.
Debates over specific root causes of corridor care continue…
The NHS Support Federation has produced a table listing the 118 acute hospital trusts in order of their officially reported numbers of incidents of corridor care, alongside figures for the number of patients who are fit to leave but still occupy beds and each trust’s level of bed occupancy – all signs of pressure. It is significant that those with the biggest problems with corridor care are those that have the most high-pressure flags.
Open the interactive table in a new tab ↗
There is no straightforward correlation between these factors, but the more signs of pressure on capacity within the hospital system, the more likely it is to experience problems with corridor care.
Back in December, a Health Service Journal article pointed to a correlation between incidents of corridor care and the number of A&E attendances, although this may be less surprising, since the largest hospitals are likely to reflect system failings most severely.
Capacity issues
More commonly, campaigners and the RCEM have argued for increased bed capacity and up to 8,000 extra staffed beds – whether these be in hospitals (RCEM) or in the community or in social care.
The RCEM has the most practical solution to this – which is to ensure the beds already in place are more efficiently used, and that new investment in expansion of services and increasing staff numbers is focused on community health services, primary care and social care outside of the hospitals:
“So far on average in 2025, 13,000 beds (13% of the total bed base) were occupied by patients medically fit for discharge …. Freeing just 60% of these beds would bring occupancy to safer levels and ease pressure on EDs.”
As various MPs said in the Commons debate, corridor care results from a combination of factors inside and outside hospitals. For example, earlier in January, a Lowdown article pointed to an increase in reports of corridor care following new guidelines aimed at speeding up the handover of patients by ambulance crews.
The W45 directive (instructing ambulance staff to leave the patient inside the hospital and get back on the road after a maximum of 45 minutes) in 2025 has had a significant effect in reducing longer handover times, making ambulance services appear more efficient … by dumping the problem onto the receiving hospitals.
The modest improvement in average response times for the most urgent Category 1 patients is a consequence of that change: so ambulances can arrive more quickly to collect more patients, who then in turn come into contact with over-stretched hospital services and face delays later on.
| Ambulance handover delays March 2024, 2025 and 2026 | |||||
| Over 15 minutes | Over 30 minutes | Over 60 minutes | %over 30 minutes | % over 60 minutes | |
| March 2024 | 260,598 | 110,720 | 35,598 | 28% | 10% |
| March 2025 | 274,020 | 113,867 | 37,332 | 27.9% | 9.1% |
| March 2026 | 262,704 | 94,414 | 22,616 | 22.6% | 5.4% |
Nor is it much surprise to find that there is a correlation between numbers in corridor care and dangerously high levels of bed occupancy. The All Party Parliamentary Group report on Corridor Care last year showed that the number of patients waiting over 4 hours on trolleys followed the same fluctuations, effectively increasing occupancy levels in acute hospitals – with the combined figure exceeding 95% since 2022 (p10).
Just looking at bed capacity alone, while the RCEM still argues says 85% occupancy is the safe limit — 93% of trusts are above it. The typical hospital is now running at 94% bed occupancy of the key ‘General and Acute’ beds (latest figures), with almost two thirds (63%) of trusts above NHS England’s own 92% warning line, at which “corridor care is hard to avoid.”
Running so close to completely full means there are often no spare beds, so any surge results in delays and queues and treatment in corridors. But we again have to note that the busiest hospitals aren’t always the worst; it depends on spare capacity.
External factors and hospital systems
Moreover, it’s important to note that capacity issues in the social care system and other underfunded care outside hospital may be the biggest single reason for delayed discharge, significant additional numbers of delays are the result of inefficient NHS systems (relying on over-stressed doctors to sign off discharge, or inadequate arrangements to ensure pharmacy promptly delivers drugs for the patient to take home). Ward admin staff able to coordinate the various actions can be the deciding factor on prompt discharge.
Discharging a patient also only frees up a bed for a corridor patient if the bed is the right type, cleaned, turned around — and, crucially, staffed. Staffing levels must be right in the whole hospital – pharmacy, diagnostics, nursing, medical staff. An empty bed with no nurse or no diagnostic capacity is of no value.
The current NHS England focus on cutting spending by reducing the number of admin and non-clinical staff can prove counter-productive if it results in inefficient use of bed capacity.
Search for solutions
A new Commons Research Briefing (July 6) has brought together many of the statements, reports and reviews that have tried to address the problem.
It notes that some have tried to argue that GPs playing a greater role in caring for frail older patients might help reduce the pressure on hospitals – while of course piling it instead on GPs (a majority of whom are already complaining that they are insufficiently resourced to deliver the increased demands of the controversial new contract). It quotes BMA General Practice Committee chair, Katie Bramall warning:
“GPs will be left reeling over the unrealistic expectation of providing unlimited same-day urgent care and profoundly concerned regarding unnecessary barriers for patients to access specialist care…”.
However, the people on trolleys in hospital corridors have been accepted by hospital doctors as needing hospital care, so it’s not clear how greater activity by GPs could do anything other than potentially increase numbers of referrals for treatment.
The Briefing notes the limp proposals in the 2025 NHS Ten Year Plan, which, coupled with the lack of any implementation plan, finance plan or workforce strategy, give only the faintest glimmer of hope that anything might be done to eliminate corridor care:
“reducing the number of patients waiting over 12 hours for admission or discharge from an emergency care department by 10% compared with 2024/25
“tackling discharge delays by eliminating internal delays of more than 48 hours and targeting patients staying 21 days over their ‘discharge ready’ date
“making progress on eliminating corridor care.”
Such lack of urgency or priority are consistent with previous NHS England assertions that the various deep-seated problems that combine to create corridor care can be wished away by more managers talking about the problem rather than the application of investment to compensate for the gaps created by 16 years of real terms standstill or cuts in health spending.
In March, before Wes Streeting’s ego forced his departure, NHS England argued (according to the HSJ report):
“Trust boards can “virtually eliminate” corridor care with ‘the right leadership ambition and focus.’”
“… a concerted approach, and several actions in particular, could allow the practice to be largely wiped out. This includes boards taking “formal ownership” of corridor care as an organisational risk, requiring approval by executive directors, reporting it as an “incident”, and discussing it at each board meeting. NHSE plans to revise its escalation and reporting rules accordingly.”
Neither gathering statistics nor Board meetings will solve the problem: it needs coordinated action in every acute trust to identify the specific mix of factors that are leading to corridor care, and the interventions inside and outside each trust that are needed to ease the flow of patients out of hospital to supportive care – and thus ease flows inside the hospital from ED to wards, and prompt treatment.
Three points in shifting from words to action
One is that corridor care (together with 12-hour trolley waits) is a problem for patients admitted as emergencies and therefore assessed as needing hospital care. No such delays affect patients with minor conditions, close to 100% of whom (96.7% in latest figures) are swiftly processed through urgent care or minor injury units and discharged home within 4 hours. So diverting more of these minor patients away from the acute hospitals will make little difference to the level of corridor care, but shifting outpatient clinics from main hospitals to neighbourhood health centres would split front-line clinical teams, reduce capacity to cope with emergencies, and worsen corridor care.
Secondly, because all of these patients have been admitted as emergencies, there can be no useful role for the private sector in this, whose only interest is in simple elective (waiting list) cases. The NHS has a combination of inadequate capacity and a system that leaves that limited capacity underused: focusing only on management and financial resources on these issues can help cut corridor care.
And third, it is clear that without recognising the true scale of the problem, and the various factors which combine (differently in each trust) to produce corridor care, there can be no hope of genuine action to eliminate it.
Sadly, even while they say this, neither NHS England nor ministers (both of whom have effectively blamed poor management for the problem, and offered no practical or financial assistance beyond telling hospital chiefs to walk round the wards more often) have been willing to face up to the scale of the problem, which has been created by 16 years of austerity limits on health spending.
In any case, measuring the problem is not enough: we have plenty of statistics exposing shortfalls in emergency care, cancer care, mental health, and other services – but without additional resources and a management commitment to change, publishing more numbers does nothing to solve the problem.
Dear Reader,
If you like our content please support our campaigning journalism to protect health care for all.
Our goal is to inform people, hold our politicians to account and help to build change through evidence based ideas.
Everyone should have access to comprehensive healthcare, but our NHS needs support. You can help us to continue to counter bad policy, battle neglect of the NHS and correct dangerous mis-infomation.
Supporters of the NHS are crucial in sustaining our health service and with your help we will be able to engage more people in securing its future.
Please donate to help support our campaigning NHS research and journalism.
