Developing Treatment Guidelines During a Pandemic Health Crisis: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Clinical Policy: Critical Issues Related to Opioids in Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians addresses key issues in opioid management in adult patients presenting to the emergency department. A writing subcommittee conducted a systematic review of the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to answer the following clinical questions: (1) In adult patients experiencing opioid withdrawal, is emergency department-administered buprenorphine as effective for the management of opioid withdrawal compared with alternative management strategies? (2) In adult patients experiencing an acute painful condition, do the benefits of prescribing a short course of opioids on discharge from the emergency department outweigh the potential harms? (3) In adult patients with an acute exacerbation of noncancer chronic pain, do the benefits of prescribing a short course of opioids on discharge from the emergency department outweigh the potential harms? (4) In adult patients with an acute episode of pain being discharged from the emergency department, do the harms of a short concomitant course of opioids and muscle relaxants/sedative-hypnotics outweigh the benefits? Evidence was graded and recommendations were made based on the strength of the available data.

A Broader View of Quality: Choosing Wisely Recommendations From Other Specialties With High Relevance to Emergency Care.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) joined the Choosing Wisely campaign in 2013 and has contributed 10 recommendations to reduce low-value care. Recommendations from other specialties may also identify opportunities to improve quality and patient safety in emergency care. The Choosing Wisely work group of the ACEP Quality and Patient Safety Committee seeks to identify and characterize the Choosing Wisely recommendations from other professional societies with the highest relevance to emergency care. METHODS: In June 2016, all Choosing Wisely recommendations from other specialties were obtained from the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. Using a modified Delphi method, the 10 group members rated recommendations for relevance on a validated 7-point scale. Recommendations identified as highly relevant (median score=7) were rated on 3 additional characteristics: cost savings (1=large, 5=none), risk-benefit profile (1=benefit >risk, 5=risk >benefit), and actionability by emergency physicians (1=complete, 5=none). Results are presented as overall means (eg, mean of subcategory means) and subcategory means with SDs. RESULTS: Initial review of 412 recommendations identified 49 items as highly relevant to emergency care. Eleven were redundant with ACEP recommendations, leaving 38 items from 25 professional societies. Overall means for items ranged from 1.57 to 3.1. Recommendations' scores averaged 3.2 (SD 0.6) for cost savings, 1.9 (SD 0.4) for risk-benefit, and 1.6 (SD 0.5) for actionability. The most common conditions in these recommendations were infectious diseases (14 items; 37%), head injury (4 items; 11%), and primary headache disorders (4 items; 11%). The most frequently addressed interventions were imaging studies (11 items; 29%) and antibiotics (9 items; 24%). CONCLUSION: Thirty-eight Choosing Wisely recommendations from other specialties are highly relevant to emergency care. Imaging studies and antibiotic use are heavily represented among them.

Correction: Correction to 'Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients With Suspected Acute Nontraumatic Thoracic Aortic Dissection' [Annals of Emergency Medicine 65 (2015) 32-42.e12].

Due to a miscommunication during the process of transferring this manuscript from our editorial team to Production, the Members of the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Committee (Oversight Committee) were not properly indexed in PubMed. This has now been corrected online. The publisher would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Allocating scarce resources in disasters: emergency department principles.

Decisions about medical resource triage during disasters require a planned structured approach, with foundational elements of goals, ethical principles, concepts of operations for reactive and proactive triage, and decision tools understood by the physicians and staff before an incident. Though emergency physicians are often on the front lines of disaster situations, too often they have not considered how they should modify their decisionmaking or use of resources to allow the "greatest good for the greatest number" to be accomplished. This article reviews key concepts from the disaster literature, providing the emergency physician with a framework of ethical and operational principles on which medical interventions provided may be adjusted according to demand and the resources available. Incidents may require a range of responses from an institution and providers, from conventional (maximal use of usual space, staff, and supplies) to contingency (use of other patient care areas and resources to provide functionally equivalent care) and crisis (adjusting care provided to the resources available when usual care cannot be provided). This continuum is defined and may be helpful when determining the scope of response and assistance necessary in an incident. A range of strategies is reviewed that can be implemented when there is a resource shortfall. The resource and staff requirements of specific incident types (trauma, burn incidents) are briefly considered, providing additional preparedness and decisionmaking tactics to the emergency provider. It is difficult to think about delivering medical care under austere conditions. Preparation and understanding of the decisions required and the objectives, strategies, and tactics available can result in better-informed decisions during an event. In turn, adherence to such a response framework can yield thoughtful stewardship of resources and improved outcomes for a larger number of patients.

Colorado Palliative Care and Hospice Crisis Standards: Moving Beyond Critical Care Planning.

Palliative care (PC) and hospice services have experienced shortages before 2020, and during the initial phases of the current pandemic, more critical gaps are expected with future surges, much as scarcity in intensive care unit services may recur during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although ethical allocation of ventilators and intensive care unit care is the subject of important discussions during this pandemic, caring for those at the end of life and those not desiring or qualifying for critical interventions must not be neglected, as critical care and comfort-focused care are intertwined. We review state and regional gaps already recognized in planning for scarcity in PC and hospice services during this pandemic and describe the planning initiatives Colorado has developed to address potential scarcities for this vulnerable and diverse group of people. We hope to encourage other state and regional groups to anticipate needs in the coming surges of this pandemic or in public health crises to come. Such planning is key to avoid the degradation of care that may result if it is necessary to invoke crisis standards of care and ration these essential services to our communities.

Blast injuries.

Health-care providers are increasingly faced with the possibility of needing to care for people injured in explosions, but can often, however, feel undertrained for the unique aspects of the patient's presentation and management. Although most blast-related injuries (eg, fragmentation injuries from improvised explosive devices and standard military explosives) can be managed in a similar manner to typical penetrating or blunt traumatic injuries, injuries caused by the blast pressure wave itself cannot. The blast pressure wave exerts forces mainly at air-tissue interfaces within the body, and the pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and auditory systems are at greatest risk. Arterial air emboli arising from severe pulmonary injury can cause ischaemic complications-especially in the brain, heart, and intestinal tract. Attributable, in part, to the scene chaos that undoubtedly exists, poor triage and missed diagnosis of blast injuries are substantial concerns because injuries can be subtle or their presentation can be delayed. Management of these injuries can be a challenge, compounded by potentially conflicting treatment goals. This Seminar aims to provide a thorough overview of these unique primary blast injuries and their management.

Delphi consensus on the feasibility of translating the ACEP clinical policies into computerized clinical decision support.

Clinical practice guidelines are developed to reduce variations in clinical practice, with the goal of improving health care quality and cost. However, evidence-based practice guidelines face barriers to dissemination, implementation, usability, integration into practice, and use. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) clinical policies have been shown to be safe and effective and are even cited by other specialties. In spite of the benefits of the ACEP clinical policies, implementation of these clinical practice guidelines into physician practice continues to be a challenge. Translation of the ACEP clinical policies into real-time computerized clinical decision support systems could help address these barriers and improve clinician decision making at the point of care. The investigators convened an emergency medicine informatics expert panel and used a Delphi consensus process to assess the feasibility of translating the current ACEP clinical policies into clinical decision support content. This resulting consensus document will serve to identify limitations to implementation of the existing ACEP Clinical Policies so that future clinical practice guideline development will consider implementation into clinical decision support at all stages of guideline development.

Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.

This clinical policy provides evidence-based recommendations on select issues in the management of adult patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the acute setting. It is the result of joint efforts between the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was developed by a multidisciplinary panel. The critical questions addressed in this clinical policy are: (1) Which patients with mild TBI should have a noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED)? (2) Is there a role for head magnetic resonance imaging over noncontrast CT in the ED evaluation of a patient with acute mild TBI? (3) In patients with mild TBI, are brain specific serum biomarkers predictive of an acute traumatic intracranial injury? (4) Can a patient with an isolated mild TBI and a normal neurologic evaluation result be safely discharged from the ED if a noncontrast head CT scan shows no evidence of intracranial injury? Inclusion criteria for application of this clinical policy's recommendations are nonpenetrating trauma to the head, presentation to the ED within 24 hours of injury, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or 15 on initial evaluation in the ED, and aged 16 years or greater. The primary outcome measure for questions 1, 2, and 3 is the presence of an acute intracranial injury on noncontrast head CT scan; the primary outcome measure for question 4 is the occurrence of neurologic deterioration.

Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.

This clinical policy provides evidence-based recommendations on select issues in the management of adult patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the acute setting. It is the result of joint efforts between the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was developed by a multidisciplinary panel. The critical questions addressed in this clinical policy are: (1) Which patients with mild TBI should have a noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED)? (2) Is there a role for head magnetic resonance imaging over noncontrast CT in the ED evaluation of a patient with acute mild TBI? (3) In patients with mild TBI, are brain specific serum biomarkers predictive of an acute traumatic intracranial injury? (4) Can a patient with an isolated mild TBI and a normal neurologic evaluation result be safely discharged from the ED if a noncontrast head CT scan shows no evidence of intracranial injury? Inclusion criteria for application of this clinical policy's recommendations are nonpenetrating trauma to the head, presentation to the ED within 24 hours of injury, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or 15 on initial evaluation in the ED, and aged 16 years or greater. The primary outcome measure for questions 1, 2, and 3 is the presence of an acute intracranial injury on noncontrast head CT scan; the primary outcome measure for question 4 is the occurrence of neurologic deterioration.

Physician Quality Reporting System Program Updates and the Impact on Emergency Medicine Practice.

In 2007, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) created a novel payment program to create incentives for physician's to focus on quality of care measures and report quality performance for the first time. Initially termed "The Physician Voluntary Reporting Program," various Congressional actions, including the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA) and Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) further strengthened and ensconced this program, eventually leading to the quality program termed today as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). As a result of passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the PQRS program has expanded to include both the "traditional PQRS" reporting program and the newer "Value Modifier" program (VM). For the first time, these programs were designed to include pay-for-performance incentives for all physicians providing care to Medicare beneficiaries and to measure the cost of care. The recent passage of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act in March of 2015 includes changes to these payment programs that will have an even more profound impact on emergency care providers. We describe the implications of these important federal policy changes for emergency physicians.

Clinical Policy for the Initial Approach to Patients Presenting With Acute Blunt Trauma.

[American College of Emergency Physicians: Clinical policy for the initial approach to patients presenting with acute blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med March 1998;31:422-454.].

Clinical Policy for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in the Emergency Department.

[American College of Emergency Physicians: Clinical policy for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med May 1998;31:663-677.].