The care of VIPs in the emergency department: Triage, treatment and ethics.

People identified as Very Important Persons (VIPs) often present or are referred to the Emergency Department (ED). Celebrities are a small subset of this group, but many others are included. Triage of these patients, including occasional prioritization, creates practical and ethical challenges. Treatment also provides challenges with the risks of over testing, overtreatment, over consultation, and over or under admission to the hospital. This article presents a practical and ethical framework for addressing the care of VIPs in the ED.

Correction: Correction to 'Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Seizures' [Annals of Emergency Medicine 63 (2014) 437-447.e15].

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.

Concussion and its neurobehavioural sequelae.

A concussion results from a force to the brain that results in a transient loss of connectivity within the brain. Sport psychiatrists are increasingly called to be part of the concussion team and need to be prepared to manage issues related to concussion and its behavioural sequelae. Objectively, the best evidence available suggests that deficits in attention and/or in balance are the most reliable objective findings that a concussion has occurred. Prognosis after a concussion is generally very good, although a sub-set of patients that are yet well defined seem pre-disposed to delayed recovery. Neither head CT nor MRI are sufficiently sensitive to diagnose the type of injuries that pre-dispose patients to the neurobehavioural sequelae that have been associated with a concussion; confounding this is the finding that many of these signs and symptoms associated with concussion occur in other types of non-head injuries. Brain biomarkers and functional MRI (fMRI) hold promise in both diagnosis and prognosis of concussion, but are still research tools without validated clinical utility at this time. Finally, neurocognitive testing holds promise as a diagnostic criterion to demonstrate injury but, unfortunately, these tests are also limited in their prognostic utility and are of limited value.

Emergency Neurological Life Support: Airway, Ventilation, and Sedation.

Airway management and ventilation are central to the resuscitation of the neurologically ill. These patients often have evolving processes that threaten the airway and adequate ventilation. Furthermore, intubation, ventilation, and sedative choices directly affect brain perfusion. Therefore, airway, ventilation, and sedation was chosen as an emergency neurological life support protocol. Topics include airway management, when and how to intubate with special attention to hemodynamics and preservation of cerebral blood flow, mechanical ventilation settings, and the use of sedative agents based on the patient's neurological status.

The American Board of Emergency Medicine Maintenance of Certification Summit.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) convened a summit of stakeholders in Emergency Medicine (EM) to critically review the ABEM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Program. OBJECTIVE: The newly introduced American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) 2015 MOC Standards require that the ABMS Member Boards, including ABEM, "engage in continual quality monitoring and improvement of its Program for MOC …" ABEM sought to have the EM community participate in the quality improvement process. DISCUSSION: A review of the ABMS philosophy of MOC and requirements for MOC were presented, followed by an exposition of the ABEM MOC Program. Roundtable discussions included strengths of the program and opportunities for improvement; defining, teaching, and assessing professionalism; identifying and filling competency gaps; and enhancing relevancy and adding value to the ABEM MOC Program. CONCLUSIONS: Several suggestions to improve the ABEM MOC Program were discussed. ABEM will consider these recommendations when developing its next revision of the ABEM MOC Program.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2004 policy on critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients with seizures in the emergency department. A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In patients with a first generalized convulsive seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status, should antiepileptic therapy be initiated in the emergency department to prevent additional seizures? (2) In patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status in the emergency department, should the patient be admitted to the hospital to prevent adverse events? (3) In patients with a known seizure disorder in which resuming their antiepileptic medication in the emergency department is deemed appropriate, does the route of administration impact recurrence of seizures? (4) In emergency department patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus who continue to have seizures despite receiving optimal dosing of a benzodiazepine, which agent or agents should be administered next to terminate seizures? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Guidelines for Prehospital Management of Traumatic Brain Injury 3rd Edition: Executive Summary.

Prehospital care markedly influences outcome from traumatic brain injury, yet it remains highly variable. The Brain Trauma Foundation's guidelines informing prehospital care, first published in 2002, have sought to identify and disseminate best practices. Many of its recommendations relate to the management of airway, breathing and circulation, and infrastructure for this care. Compliance with the second edition of these guidelines has been associated with significantly improved survival. A working group developed evidence-based recommendations informing assessment, treatment, and transport decision-making relevant to the prehospital care of brain injured patients. A literature search spanning May 2005 to January 2022 supplemented data contained in the 2nd edition. Identified studies were assessed for quality and used to inform evidence-based recommendations. A total of 122 published articles formed the evidentiary base for this guideline update including 5 providing Class I evidence, 35 providing Class II evidence, and 98 providing Class III evidence for the various topics. Forty evidence-based recommendations were generated, 30 of which were strong and 10 of which were weak. In many cases, new evidence allowed guidelines from the 2nd edition to be strengthened. Development of guidelines on some new topics was possible including the prehospital administration of tranexamic acid. A management algorithm is also presented. These guidelines help to identify best practices for prehospital traumatic brain injury care, and they also identify gaps in knowledge which we hope will be addressed before the next edition.

Emergency neurological life support: airway, ventilation, and sedation.

Airway management is central to the resuscitation of the neurologically ill. These patients often have evolving processes that threaten the airway and adequate ventilation. Therefore, airway, ventilation, and sedation were chosen as an Emergency Neurological Life Support (ENLS) protocol. Reviewed topics include airway management; the decision to intubate; when and how to intubate with attention to cardiovascular status; mechanical ventilation settings; and the use of sedation, including how to select sedative agents based on the patient's neurological status.

Revised and updated recommendations for the establishment of primary stroke centers: a summary statement from the brain attack coalition.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The formation and certification of Primary Stroke Centers has progressed rapidly since the Brain Attack Coalition's original recommendations in 2000. The purpose of this article is to revise and update our recommendations for Primary Stroke Centers to reflect the latest data and experience. METHODS: We conducted a literature review using MEDLINE and PubMed from March 2000 to January 2011. The review focused on studies that were relevant for acute stroke diagnosis, treatment, and care. Original references as well as meta-analyses and other care guidelines were also reviewed and included if found to be valid and relevant. Levels of evidence were added to reflect current guideline development practices. RESULTS: Based on the literature review and experience at Primary Stroke Centers, the importance of some elements has been further strengthened, and several new areas have been added. These include (1) the importance of acute stroke teams; (2) the importance of Stroke Units with telemetry monitoring; (3) performance of brain imaging with MRI and diffusion-weighted sequences; (4) assessment of cerebral vasculature with MR angiography or CT angiography; (5) cardiac imaging; (6) early initiation of rehabilitation therapies; and (7) certification by an independent body, including a site visit and disease performance measures. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence, several elements of Primary Stroke Centers are particularly important for improving the care of patients with an acute stroke. Additional elements focus on imaging of the brain, the cerebral vasculature, and the heart. These new elements may improve the care and outcomes for patients with stroke cared for at a Primary Stroke Center.

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.

Transient ischemic attack overview: defining the challenges for improving outcomes.

Transient ischemic attacks are reversible neurologic events that herald potentially catastrophic strokes. Well designed studies have documented that approximately 10% of patients who have a transient ischemic attack will have a stroke within the succeeding 90 days; half of these strokes occur within 48 hours of the transient ischemic attack. Improved outcomes from transient ischemic attacks require a heightened awareness of the clinical features of transient ischemic attacks on the part of both patients and physicians. The significant potential for stroke in the immediate days after the transient ischemic attack imposes an urgency in the diagnostic evaluation of these patients. A review of the literature suggests that there is a need for pathways to promote facilitated evaluations of transient ischemic attack patients in order to identify underlying correctable pathologies, and to direct medical and surgical management strategies.

Clinical policy: Critical issues in the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute carbon monoxide poisoning.

This clinical policy focuses on critical issues concerning the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute symptomatic carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. The subcommittee reviewed the medical literature relevant to the questions posed. The critical questions are: Should hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy be used for the treatment of patients with acute CO poisoning; and Can clinical or laboratory criteria identify CO-poisoned patients who are most or least likely to benefit from this therapy. Recommendations are provided on the basis of the strength of evidence of the literature. Level A recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty; Level B recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect moderate clinical certainty; and Level C recommendations represent other patient management strategies that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or based on committee consensus. This clinical policy is intended for physicians working in hospital-based EDs.

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: critical issues in the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute carbon monoxide poisoning.

This clinical policy focuses on critical issues concerning the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute symptomatic carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. The subcommittee reviewed the medical literature relevant to the questions posed. The critical questions are: Should hyperbaric oxygen (HBO(2)) therapy be used for the treatment of patients with acute CO poisoning; and Can clinical or laboratory criteria identify CO-poisoned patients who are most or least likely to benefit from this therapy? Recommendations are provided on the basis of the strength of evidence of the literature. Level A recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty; Level B recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect moderate clinical certainty; and Level C recommendations represent other patient management strategies that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or based on committee consensus. This clinical policy is intended for physicians working in hospital-based EDs.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acetaminophen overdose.

This clinical policy focuses on critical issues concerning the management of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acetaminophen overdose. The subcommittee reviewed the medical literature relevant to the questions posed. The critical questions are: 1. What are the indications for N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in the acetaminophen overdose patient with a known time of acute ingestion who can be risk stratified by th Rumack-Matthew nomogram? 2. What are the indications for NAC in the acetaminophen overdose patient who cannot be risk stratified by the Rumack-Matthew nomogram? Recommendations are provided on the basis of the strength of evidence of the literature. Level A recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty; Level B recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect moderate clinical certainty; and Level C recommendations represent other patient management strategies that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or based on committee consensus. This guideline is intended for physicians working in EDs.

Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for prediction of absence of intracranial injuries on head CT (ALERT-TBI): a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: More than 50 million people worldwide sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) annually. Detection of intracranial injuries relies on head CT, which is overused and resource intensive. Blood-based brain biomarkers hold the potential to predict absence of intracranial injury and thus reduce unnecessary head CT scanning. We sought to validate a test combining ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), at predetermined cutoff values, to predict traumatic intracranial injuries on head CT scan acutely after TBI. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre observational trial included adults (≥18 years) presenting to participating emergency departments with suspected, non-penetrating TBI and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 9-15. Patients were eligible if they had undergone head CT as part of standard emergency care and blood collection within 12 h of injury. UCH-L1 and GFAP were measured in serum and analysed using prespecified cutoff values of 327 pg/mL and 22 pg/mL, respectively. UCH-L1 and GFAP assay results were combined into a single test result that was compared with head CT results. The primary study outcomes were the sensitivity and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the test result for the detection of traumatic intracranial injury on head CT. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2012, and March 20, 2014, 1977 patients were recruited, of whom 1959 had analysable data. 125 (6%) patients had CT-detected intracranial injuries and eight (<1%) had neurosurgically manageable injuries. 1288 (66%) patients had a positive UCH-L1 and GFAP test result and 671 (34%) had a negative test result. For detection of intracranial injury, the test had a sensitivity of 0·976 (95% CI 0·931-0·995) and an NPV of 0·996 (0·987-0·999). In three (<1%) of 1959 patients, the CT scan was positive when the test was negative. INTERPRETATION: These results show the high sensitivity and NPV of the UCH-L1 and GFAP test. This supports its potential clinical role for ruling out the need for a CT scan among patients with TBI presenting at emergency departments in whom a head CT is felt to be clinically indicated. Future studies to determine the value added by this biomarker test to head CT clinical decision rules could be warranted. FUNDING: Banyan Biomarkers and US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acetaminophen overdose.

This clinical policy focuses on critical issues concerning the management of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acetaminophen overdose. The subcommittee reviewed the medical literature relevant to the questions posed. The critical questions are: 1. What are the indications for N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in the acetaminophen overdose patient with a known time of acute ingestion who can be risk stratified by the Rumack-Matthew nomogram? 2. What are the indications for NAC in the acetaminophen overdose patient who cannot be risk stratified by the Rumack-Matthew nomogram? Recommendations are provided on the basis of the strength of evidence of the literature. Level A recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty; Level B recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect moderate clinical certainty; and Level C recommendations represent other patient management strategies that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or based on committee consensus. This guideline is intended for physicians working in EDs.

Clinical policies: their history, future, medical legal implications, and growing importance to physicians.

The proliferation of research, particularly research into evidence-based care and quality improvement, has brought about a void in the need to educate, summarize, and distill scientific advances. Clinical policies or practice guidelines are a unique method of filling this void. While the number of policies published has increased significantly over the last 10 years, their impact on physician practice remains ill-defined. This article aims to provide historical background and methodology, explore physician attitudes toward them and their effectiveness at impacting clinical care, as well as discuss their future medical legal implications.