Do We Cover Shortages??

[Uruj]

Urgent Question Guys...

If There Is A Shortage Of Nurses, Can We Write That 'the Shortage Was covered By Sending 10 Nurses?'

Thanks And Regards.

 

[Buddha]

Urgent Question Guys...

If There Is A Shortage Of Nurses, Can We Write That 'the Shortage Was covered By Sending 10 Nurses?'

Thanks And Regards.

That is gramatically correct (in my opinion), though I would tend to use active voice, instead of passive. What do I mean? I'd say:

We covered the shortage by sending 10 nurses.

Buddha

 

[Uruj]

What I really wanted to know was if 'covered' is the right word to use when saying that the shortage was filled.

 

[E-J]

Hello Uruj

Usually we make up or address a shortage. My suggestions for the most natural way of using these in your context are as follows:

"10 nurses were sent over to make up the shortage."
or
"They addressed the shortage by sending over 10 nurses".

Hope this helps.

 

[Kelly B]

I prefer "cover," myself, although I think "address" is also a very good choice.

 

[E-J]

Hi Kelly. Perhaps this is a case of British and American English preferences?

 

[Buddha]

Sorry for the confusion, Uruj, but I was casting my vote for covered. E-J's examples are completely acceptable too, though I would definitely consider them British English.

Buddha

PS: So much for a quick answer...

 

[foxfirebrand]

I liked "cover a shortage" too until I realized I was conflating it with "cover a shortfall." Covering shortages still sounds okay, but it has a stopgap or temporary-solution sound to it. I guess that's implied by the urgency-- hope it meets your needs, uruj.

But in the long haul, market forces are going to have to come into play. Nurses are scandalously underpaid, especially ones who work in caretaking and health-maintenance, such as nursing-home employees.
.