This study aimed to explore emergency medical dispatchers’ (EMDs’) experiences of prioritising patients and stewarding ambulance resources when system capacity was constrained.

Qualitative interview study using inductive qualitative content analysis.

Emergency medical communication centres (EMCCs) in Sweden, operated by the national emergency call provider and responsible for receiving 112 calls and dispatching ambulances.

13 purposively sampled EMDs with at least 1 year of professional experience.

Interviews were analysed inductively using qualitative content analysis (Elo and Kyngäs) through open coding, grouping into subcategories and abstraction into generic categories and one main category.

Dispatchers described prioritisation under scarcity as system work that simultaneously addressed individual patient acuity and population-level readiness. One main category captured this work: stewarding scarce response capacity. Three inter-related generic categories characterised stewardship: (1) prioritising by clinical urgency within geographic and operational constraints; (2) producing availability through anticipation, reassessment and queue governance in a ‘virtual waiting room’; and (3) coordinating response through information infrastructures and interprofessional collaboration. Across categories, dispatchers described redistributing risk across patients and time, managing moral strain when delays could harm patients and using experience, reassessment and teamwork to avoid both under-response to urgent need and over-allocation that would leave areas without coverage.

Dispatch under scarcity is best understood as active stewardship of a safety-critical dispatch queue. Strengthening patient safety therefore requires organisational support for reassessment and escalation during prolonged waits, explicit governance of queue dynamics and geographic coverage trade-offs, safeguards for contextual judgement when automation is used and support for dispatchers exposed to morally difficult scarcity decisions.

Loneliness and social isolation are critical public health issues linked to significant adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation, including visits to the emergency department (ED). The ED often serves as a primary societal safety net, providing care for vulnerable populations who may be disproportionately affected by these conditions. In fact, loneliness and social isolation might be the underlying reasons they presented to the ED in the first place either consciously or not. For such individuals, the ED encounter may represent a rare point of human contact, yet the stressful and depersonalising nature of the ED environment may paradoxically exacerbate their sense of isolation. Furthermore, ED staff may lack the training and awareness of the scope of the problem to properly screen for loneliness and address it. Yet, the compounded impact of the ED experience on lonely or socially isolated patients and the relationship between loneliness and healthcare utilisation remains poorly understood. This paper presents a protocol for a scoping review designed to systematically map the existing evidence on the experiences of these patients and the perspectives of the clinicians who care for them.

This scoping review will be conducted following the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The findings will be reported according to the Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (PRISMA-S; see ). A comprehensive search will be performed across five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CNKI) and grey literature sources. Studies published in English or Chinese that address loneliness or social isolation in the ED context, from the perspective of adult or paediatric patients or clinical staff, will be included. A novel, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted screening process will be utilised for initial relevance assessment, followed by full manual screening and data extraction by two independent reviewers to ensure rigour and mitigate bias. Findings will be synthesised using a narrative approach and thematic analysis to identify key concepts, themes and existing gaps in the literature.

As this study synthesises data from previously published literature, it does not require formal ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. The aim is to provide an evidence-based roadmap to guide future research, inform policy and support the development of interventions designed to improve care and outcomes for this vulnerable population within the acute care setting.

The review has been registered at Open Science Framework, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/MBVSR.