Civil Monetary Penalties for EMTALA Violations Involving Minors, 2002-2023.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is intended to prevent inadequate, delayed, or denied treatment of emergent conditions by emergency departments (EDs). EMTALA requirements pertain to patients of all ages presenting to dedicated EDs regardless of whether facilities have dedicated pediatric specialty services. This study aims to describe EMTALA-related civil monetary penalty (CMP) settlements involving minors. METHODS: Descriptions of all EMTALA-related CMPs occurring between 2002 and 2023 were obtained from the Office of the Inspector General web site and reviewed for involvement of minors (<18 years of age) using keywords in settlement summaries. Characteristics of settlements involving minors were described and compared with settlements not involving minors. RESULTS: Of 260 EMTALA-related CMPs, 38 (14.6%) involved minors. Most involved failure to provide a medical screening exam (MSE) (86.8%) and/or stabilizing treatment (52.6%). Seven (18.4%) involved pregnant minors. Eleven (28.9%) involved ED staff directing a patient (or guardian) to another facility, typically by private vehicle, and another involved 2 patients referred to on-campus outpatient clinics without an MSE. CONCLUSIONS: One in 7 CMPs related to EMTALA violations involved minors, and 1 in 5 of these minors was pregnant. One-third of CMPs involving minors included ED staff directing patients to proceed to another facility or on-campus clinic without MSE or stabilization. Findings suggest a need for providers to understand EMTALA-specific requirements for appropriate MSE, stabilization, and transfer, and for EDs at hospitals with limited pediatric services to implement policies for the evaluation of minors and protocols for transfer when indicated.

Characteristics and Outcomes of 360 Consecutive COVID-19 Patients Discharged From the Emergency Department With Supplemental Oxygen.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics and outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from a large public urban emergency department (ED) with supplemental oxygen. METHODS: This observational case series describes the characteristics and outcomes of 360 consecutive COVID-19 patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from a large urban public ED between April 2020 and March 2021 with supplemental oxygen. Primary outcomes included 30-day survival and 30-day survival without unscheduled inpatient admission. Demographic and clinical data were collected through a structured chart review. RESULTS: Among 360 patients with COVID-19 discharged from the ED with supplemental oxygen, 30-day survival was 97.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.3 to 98.9%; n=351), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission was 81.1% (95% CI 76.7 to 85.0%; n=292). A sensitivity analysis incorporating worst-case-scenario for 12 patients without complete follow-up 30 days after index visit yields 30-day survival of 95.5% (95% CI 92.5 to 97.2%; n=343), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission of 78.9% (95% CI 74.3 to 83.0%; n=284). Among study patients, 32.2% (n=116) had a nadir ED oxygen saturation of <90%, among these 30-day survival was 97.4% (95% CI 92.6 to 99.4%; n=113), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission was 76.7% (95% CI 68.8 to 84.1%; n=89). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from the ED had survival comparable to COVID-19 ED patients with mild exertional hypoxia treated with supplemental oxygen in other settings, and this held true when the analysis was restricted to patients with nadir ED index visit oxygen saturations <90%. Discharge of select COVID-19 patients with supplemental oxygen from the ED may provide a viable alternative to hospitalization, particularly when inpatient capacity is limited.