Search

Introduction: Sports venues foster community and support local economies. Due to their capacity to host hundreds to thousands of spectators, sports venues are vulnerable to becoming targets of terrorism. Types of venues targeted, regional trends, and methods of attack employed world-wide have not been well-described. Methods: A search of the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) was conducted from 1970 through the end of 2019. Pre-coded variables for target type “business” and target subtype “entertainment/cultural/stadium/casino” were used to identify attacks involving venues where sports events might be viewed by spectators as part of an audience. Sports venues were specifically identified using the search terms “sport,” “stadium,” ”arena,” and “ring,” as well as mention of any specific sport. Two authors then manually reviewed each entry for specific information to confirm appropriateness for inclusion, selecting preferentially for attacks against venues where watching a sports event was the primary focus for the majority of the attendees. Descriptive statistics were performed using R (3.6.1). Results: Seventy-four (74) terrorist attacks targeting sports venues were identified from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 2019. Thirty-three (33) attacks, or 44.6% of attacks, involved soccer stadiums or soccer venues, while 33.8% of attacks (25 attacks) involved unspecified sports venues. A bombing or explosion was the most frequent method of attack employed, comprising 87.8% of attacks. The highest number of attacks occurred in the Middle East & North Africa. In total, 213 persons died and 699 more were wounded in attacks against sports venues. Conclusion: Although terrorist attacks against sports venues are uncommon, they carry the risk of mass casualties, especially when explosives are used. A greater understanding of the threat posed by terrorist attacks against sports venues can aid emergency preparedness planning and future medical responses.

Acute bacterial meningitis in adults is a rare but serious condition that carries a high rate of morbidity.This review highlights pearls and pitfalls of acute bacterial meningitis in adults, including presentation, diagnosis, and management in the emergency department (ED) based on current evidence.Meningitis encompasses a broad spectrum of disease involving inflammation of the meninges and subarachnoid space. It classically presents with fever, nuchal rigidity, and altered mental status, but this triad is not present in all cases. Up to 95% of patients will have at least two of the following four cardinal symptoms: fever, nuchal rigidity, altered mental status, and headache. The most common bacterial etiologies are S. pneumoniae and N. meningitidis. Cerebrospinal fluid testing obtained by lumbar puncture remains the gold standard in diagnosis. Head computed tomography prior to lumbar puncture may not be necessary in most patients. Empiric treatment consists of vancomycin, ceftriaxone, and dexamethasone. Elevated intracranial pressure should be managed using established neurocritical care strategies.A better understanding of the pearls and pitfalls of acute bacterial meningitis can assist emergency clinicians in pursuing its timely diagnosis and management.

Environmental contamination is commonly experienced by working canines deployed in the field. Unfortunately, data regarding safety and efficacy of cleansers recommended for decontamination is lacking. Client-owned canines recruited from the community (n = 43) were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: povidone-iodine scrub [60mL Betadine® 7.5% povidone-iodine surgical scrub (Avrio Health L.P, Stamford, CT)], chlorhexidine scrub [60 mL Nolvasan® 2% chlorohexidine surgical scrub (Zoetis, Kalamazoo, MI)], dish detergent [60mL Dawn® dish detergent (ProctorGamble, Cincinnati, OH)], or water alone (control). A visual score assessing removal of a fluorescent marker (GloGerm, Moab, UT) applied between the shoulder blades was used to rate effectiveness of decontamination. Cleanser effect on canine dermal barrier function was determined by measuring pre- and post-decontamination dermal pH and trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL). Analysis of visual scores was performed using PROC FREQ and Chi Square. Significance was set

Monkeypox is an emerging viral disease that has been declared a global health emergency. While this disease has been present for over 50 years, the recent surge in cases and expanding knowledge of this has prompted a need for a focused review for practicing clinicians.This narrative review provides a focused overview of the epidemiology, presentation, evaluation, and management of monkeypox for emergency clinicians.Monkeypox is an orthopoxvirus endemic to central and western Africa. An outbreak in May and June 2022 across Asia, Europe, North America, and South America was declared a global health emergency in July 2022. The disease can be transmitted via contact with an infected animal or human, as well as contact with a contaminated material. The disease presents with a prodromal flu-like illness and lymphadenopathy. A rash spreading in a centrifugal manner involving the oral mucosa, face, palms, and soles is typical. Lesions progress along various stages. Complications such as bacterial skin infection, pneumonitis, ocular conditions, and encephalitis are uncommon. Confirmation typically includes polymerase chain reaction testing. The majority of patients improve with symptomatic therapy, and as of July 2022, there are no United States Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments specifically for monkeypox. However, antiviral treatment should be considered for several patient populations at risk for severe outcomes.An understanding of the presentation, evaluation, and management of monkeypox is essential for emergency clinicians to ensure appropriate diagnosis and treatment of this emerging disease.

Introduction:In fostering community and culture through entertainment in shared spaces, performing arts venues have also become targets of terrorism. A greater understanding of these attacks is needed to assess the risk posed to different types of venues, to inform medical disaster preparedness, to anticipate injury patterns, and to reduce preventable deaths.Methods:A search of the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) was conducted from the year 1970 through 2019. Using pre-coded variables for target/victim type and target subtype, attacks involving “business” and “entertainment/cultural/stadium/casino” were identified. Attacks targeting performing arts venues were selected using the search terms “theater,” “theatre,” “auditorium,” “center,” “hall,” “house,” “concert,” “music,” “opera,” “cinema,” and “movie.” Manual review by two authors was performed to confirm appropriateness for inclusion of entries involving venues where the primary focus of the audience was to view a performance. Descriptive statistics were performed using R (version 3.6.1).Results:A total of 312 terrorist attacks targeting performing arts venues were identified from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 2019. Two-hundred nine (67.0%) attacks involved cinemas or movie theaters, 80 (25.6%) involved unspecified theaters, and 23 (7.4%) specifically targeted live music performance venues. Two-hundred thirty-four (75.0%) attacks involved a bombing or explosion, 50 (16.0%) damaged a facility or infrastructure, and 17 (5.4%) included armed assault. Perpetrators used explosives in 234 (75.0%) attacks, incendiary weapons in 50 (16.0%) attacks, and firearms in 19 (6.1%) attacks. In total, attacks claimed the lives of 1,307 and wounded 4,201 persons. Though fewer in number, attacks against music venues were responsible for 29.4% of fatalities and 35.0% of those wounded, and more frequently involved the use of firearms. Among 95 attacks falling within the highest quartile for victims killed or wounded (>two killed and/or >ten wounded), 83 (87.4%) involved explosives, seven (7.4%) involved firearms, and three (3.2%) involved incendiary methods.Conclusion:While uncommon, terrorist attacks against performing arts venues carry the risk for mass casualties, particularly when explosives and firearms are used.

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. Its impact on the health and welfare of the human population is significant; its impact on the delivery of healthcare is also considerable.This article is another paper in a series addressing COVID-19-related updates to emergency clinicians on the management of COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest.COVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. From a global perspective, as of February 23, 2022, 435 million infections have been noted with 5.9 million deaths (1.4%). Current data suggest an increase in the occurrence of cardiac arrest, both in the outpatient and inpatient settings, with corresponding reductions in most survival metrics. The frequency of out-of-hospital lay provider initial care has decreased while non-shockable initial cardiac arrest rhythms have increased. While many interventions, including chest compressions, are aerosol-generating procedures, the risk of contagion to healthcare personnel is low, assuming appropriate personal protective equipment is used; vaccination with boosting provides further protection against contagion for the healthcare personnel involved in cardiac arrest resuscitation. The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of cardiac arrest care is considerable and, despite multiple efforts, has adversely impacted the chain of survival.This review provides a focused update of cardiac arrest in the setting of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.This is the second part in a series on COVID-19 updates providing a focused overview of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians.COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of medical therapies have been introduced for use, including steroids, antivirals, interleukin-6 antagonists, monoclonal antibodies, and kinase inhibitors. These agents have each demonstrated utility in certain patient subsets. Prophylactic anticoagulation in admitted patients demonstrates improved outcomes. Further randomized data concerning aspirin in outpatients with COVID-19 are needed. Any beneficial impact of other therapies, such as colchicine, convalescent plasma, famotidine, ivermectin, and vitamins and minerals is not present in reliable medical literature. In addition, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not recommended.This review provides a focused update of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians to help improve care for these patients.

The opioid overdose epidemic is one of the leading causes of death in adults. Its devastating effects have included not only a burgeoning overdose crisis but also multiple converging infectious diseases epidemics. The use of both opioids and other substances through intravenous (IV) administration places individuals at increased risks of infectious diseases ranging from invasive bacterial and fungal infections to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and viral hepatitis. In 2012, there were 530,000 opioid use disorder (OUD)-related hospitalizations in the United States (US), with $700 million in costs associated with OUD-related infections. The scale of the crisis has continued to increase since that time, with hospitalizations for injection drug use-related infective endocarditis (IDU-IE) increasing by as much as 12-fold from 2010 to 2015. Deaths from IDU-IE alone are estimated to result in over 7,260,000 years of potential life lost over the next 10 years. There have been high-profile injection-related HIV outbreaks, and injection drug use (IDU) is now the most common risk factor for hepatitis C virus (HCV). As this epidemic continues to grow, clinicians in all aspects of medical care are increasingly confronted with infectious complications of IDU. This review will describe the pathogenesis, clinical syndromes, epidemiology, and models of treatment for common infectious complications among persons who inject drugs (PWIDs).

Introduction Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. Objective This first in a two-part series on COVID-19 updates provides a focused overview of the presentation and evaluation of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians. Discussion COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several variants exist, including a variant of concern known as Delta (B.1.617.2 lineage) and the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 lineage). The Delta variant is associated with higher infectivity and poor patient outcomes, and the Omicron variant has resulted in a significant increase in infections. While over 80% of patients experience mild symptoms, a significant proportion can be critically ill, including those who are older and those with comorbidities. Upper respiratory symptoms, fever, and changes in taste/smell remain the most common presenting symptoms. Extrapulmonary complications are numerous and may be severe, including the cardiovascular, neurologic, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic systems. Emergency department evaluation includes focused testing for COVID-19 and assessment of end-organ injury. Imaging may include chest radiography, computed tomography, or ultrasound. Several risk scores may assist in prognostication, including the 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) score, quick COVID Severity Index (qCSI), NEWS2, and the PRIEST score, but these should only supplement and not replace clinical judgment. Conclusion This review provides a focused update of the presentation and evaluation of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.

Background Emergency departments (EDs) play an essential role in the timely initiation of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for sexual assault victims. Methods Retrospective analysis of sexual assault victims evaluated and offered HIV PEP in an urban academic ED between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2018. Data on demographics, comorbidities, nature of sexual assault, initial ED care, subsequent healthcare utilization within 28 days of initial ED visit, and evidence of seroconversion within 6 months of the initial ED visit were obtained. Predictors of subsequent ED visit and follow-up in the infectious diseases clinic were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Results Four hundred twenty-three ED visits met criteria for inclusion in this study. Median age at ED presentation was 25 years (IQR 21–34 years), with the majority of victims being female (95.5%), Black (63.4%), unemployed (66.3%) and uninsured (53.9%); psychiatric comorbidities (38.8%) and substance abuse (23.6%) were common. About 87% of the patients accepted HIV PEP (368 of 423 ED visits). Age (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–0.99, p = 0.025) and sexual assault involving >1 assailant (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26–0.88, p = 0.018) were associated with lower likelihood of HIV PEP acceptance. Ten patients (2.7%) followed up with the infectious disease clinic within 28 days of starting HIV PEP; 70 patients (19%) returned to the ED for care during the same time period. Psychiatric comorbidity (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.43–4.30, p = 0.001) and anal penetration (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.10–3.70, p = 0.024) were associated with greater likelihood of repeat ED visit; female gender (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11–0.85, p = 0.023) was associated with lower likelihood of repeat visit. Completion of HIV PEP was documented for 14 (3.3%) individuals. Conclusions While ED patient acceptance of HIV PEP after sexual assault was high, infectious disease clinic follow-up and documented completion of PEP remained low. Innovative care models bridging EDs to outpatient clinics and community support services are needed to optimize transitions of care for sexual assault victims, including those receiving HIV PEP.

Background The rise in injection drug use (IDU) has led to an increase in drug-related infections and hospitalizations. Harm reduction is an important strategy for preventing infections among people who inject drugs (PWID). We set out to evaluate how infectious disease physicians counsel PWID with serious injection-related infections on harm reduction practices. Methods An electronic survey was distributed to 1,510 physician members of the Emerging Infectious Network (EIN) to determine which harm reduction principles ID physicians recommend to PWID to reduce infection risks. EIN members who do not care for PWID were excluded. Two weekly reminders were sent to increase the response rate. Results Three hundred ninety-nine (26%, still in progress) ID physicians responded to the survey. Practice settings included: university (37%), community (27%), non-university teaching (23%), or other (14%) hospital settings. Of those, 279 (70%) reported routinely caring for PWID. 274 (98%) performed screening for HIV and hepatitis, and 239 (86%) discussed the risk of these viral infections. 65% prescribed immunization against hepatitis and 44% discussed HIV PrEP. 57% (n=159) reported not counseling patients on safer injection strategies. Common reasons for not counseling included limited time and a desire to emphasize antibiotic therapy/medical issues (33%, n=91), lack of training (30%, n=85), and believing that it would be better addressed by other services (27%, n=75). Among physicians who reported counseling PWID, they recommended abstinence from IDU (38%, n=105), handwashing & skin cleansing prior to injection (33%, n=92), avoiding injecting areas of skin breakdown (27%, n=76), and cleaning needles between use (26%, n= 73). Finally, 17% (N=47) reported no access to any addiction services. Conclusion Almost all ID physicians screen PWID for HIV and viral hepatitis and discuss the risks of these infections. Despite frequently encountering PWID, less than half of ID physicians provide safer injection advice. Opportunities exist to standardize education of PWID on harm reduction, emphasizing safer injection practices in conjunction with other strategies (e.g. HIV PrEP, HAV/HBV vaccination) to prevent infections. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Infectious diseases physicians are leaders in assessing the health risks in a variety of community settings. An understudied area with substantial controversy is the safety of dental aerosols. Previous studies have used in vitro experimental designs and/or indirect measures to evaluate bacteria and viruses from dental surfaces. However, these findings may overestimate the occupational risks of dental aerosols. The purpose of this study was to directly measure dental aerosol composition to assess the health risks for dental healthcare personnel and patients. Methods We used a variety of aerosol instruments to capture and measure the bacterial, viral, and inorganic composition of aerosols during a variety of common dental procedures and in a variety of dental office layouts. Equipment was placed in close proximity to dentists during each procedure to best approximate the health risk hazards from the perspective of dental healthcare personnel. Devices used to capture aerosols were set at physiologic respiration rates. Oral suction devices were per the discretion of the dentist. Results We detected very few bacteria and no viruses in dental aerosols—regardless of office layout. The bacteria identified were most consistent with either environmental or oral microbiota, suggesting a low risk of transmission of viable pathogens from patients to dental healthcare personnel. When analyzing restorative procedures involving amalgam removal, we detected inorganic elements consistent with amalgam fillings. Conclusions Aerosols generating from dental procedures pose a low health risk for bacterial and likely viral pathogens when common aerosol mitigation interventions, such as suction devices, are employed.

Vaccinators fulfill an important role in a nation's public health by reducing the burden of disease on the population. Understanding patterns of attack employed against vaccinators is important to determine how to protect them. We conducted a search of the Global Terrorism Database for terrorist attacks against vaccinators that occurred between the years 1970 and 2018. Using the search terms "hospital," "healthcare," "clinic," "doctor," "nurses," "vaccinators," and "vaccinations," 2,322 healthcare-related entries were identified. We then manually searched the dataset for incidents related to attacks on vaccinators, which resulted in the identification of 133 attacks against vaccinators. The majority (128 out of 133) of attacks occurred during or after 2010. Every attack except one has occurred in the Middle East, South Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa. Pakistan has seen the most attacks against vaccinators, with 112 incidents recorded. Vaccinators continue to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Protection of healthcare personnel during mass vaccination efforts is critical so that they can continue their lifesaving mission.

Emergency departments (EDs) play an integral role in a community's response to disaster. Terrorist attacks targeting EDs have the potential to disrupt the emergency response apparatus. Understanding prior attacks against EDs can yield important lessons to mitigate the impact of future violence.In this review, the authors used the Global Terrorism Database to conduct a search on terrorist attacks targeting EDs between 1970 and 2018. Using the search terms "doctor," "nurses," "hospital," "healthcare," "clinic," "vaccinators," and "vaccinations," a total of 2322 healthcare-specific incidents were isolated. The database was further narrowed down to terrorist attacks targeting EDs, using the search terms "emergency," "emergency department," and "emergency ward."A total of six attacks involving five countries were isolated. These attacks occurred between 1991 and 2016, with the majority involving the use of explosive devices, killing a total of 57 victims and leaving 26 wounded.Attacks against EDs, while rare, have the potential to lead to loss of life through both the direct attack and subsequent disruptions to healthcare.

Background Urine cultures are nonspecific and often lead to misdiagnosis of urinary tract infection and unnecessary antibiotics. Diagnostic stewardship is a set of procedures that modifies test ordering, processing, and reporting in order to optimize diagnosis and downstream treatment. In this study, we aimed to develop expert guidance on best practices for urine culture diagnostic stewardship. Methods A RAND-modified Delphi approach with a multidisciplinary expert panel was used to ascertain diagnostic stewardship best practices. Clinical questions to guide recommendations were grouped into three thematic areas (ordering, processing, reporting) in practice settings of emergency department, inpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care. Fifteen experts ranked recommendations on a 9-point Likert scale. Recommendations on which the panel did not reach agreement were discussed during a virtual meeting, then a second round of ranking by email was completed. After secondary review of results and panel discussion, a series of guidance statements was developed. Results One hundred and sixty-five questions were reviewed. The panel reaching agreement on 104, leading to 18 overarching guidance statements. The following strategies were recommended to optimize ordering urine cultures: requiring documentation of symptoms, sending alerts to discourage ordering in the absence of symptoms, and cancelling repeat cultures. For urine culture processing, conditional urine cultures and urine white blood cell count as criteria were supported. For urine culture reporting, appropriate practices included nudges to discourage treatment under specific conditions and selective reporting of antibiotics to guide therapy decisions. Conclusions These 18 guidance statements can optimize use of urine cultures for better patient outcomes.

Introduction High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a noninvasive ventilation (NIV) system that has demonstrated promise in the emergency department (ED) setting. Objective This narrative review evaluates the utility of HFNC in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED setting. Discussion HFNC provides warm (37 °C), humidified (100% relative humidity) oxygen at high flows with a reliable fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2). HFNC can improve oxygenation, reduce airway resistance, provide humidified flow that can flush anatomical dead space, and provide a low amount of positive end expiratory pressure. Recent literature has demonstrated efficacy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, including pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), interstitial lung disease, immunocompromised states, the peri-intubation state, and palliative care, with reduced need for intubation, length of stay, and mortality in some of these conditions. Individual patient factors play an important role in infection control risks with respect to the use of HFNC in patients with COVID-19. Appropriate personal protective equipment, adherence to hand hygiene, surgical mask placement over the HFNC device, and environmental controls promoting adequate room ventilation are the foundation for protecting healthcare personnel. Frequent reassessment of the patient placed on HFNC is necessary; those with severe end organ dysfunction, thoracoabdominal asynchrony, significantly increased respiratory rate, poor oxygenation despite HFNC, and tachycardia are at increased risk of HFNC failure and need for further intervention. Conclusions HFNC demonstrates promise in several conditions requiring respiratory support. Further randomized trials are needed in the ED setting.

Introduction Rapid worldwide spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a global pandemic. Objective This review article provides emergency physicians with an overview of the most current understanding of COVID-19 and recommendations on the evaluation and management of patients with suspected COVID-19. Discussion Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for causing COVID-19, is primarily transmitted from person-to-person through close contact (approximately 6 ft) by respiratory droplets. Symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to other viral upper respiratory illnesses. Three major trajectories include mild disease with upper respiratory symptoms, non-severe pneumonia, and severe pneumonia complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Emergency physicians should focus on identifying patients at risk, isolating suspected patients, and informing hospital infection prevention and public health authorities. Patients with suspected COVID-19 should be asked to wear a facemask. Respiratory etiquette, hand washing, and personal protective equipment are recommended for all healthcare personnel caring for suspected cases. Disposition depends on patient symptoms, hemodynamic status, and patient ability to self-quarantine. Conclusion This narrative review provides clinicians with an updated approach to the evaluation and management of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected COVID-19.

Objective:To determine the impact of various aerosol mitigation interventions and to establish duration of aerosol persistence in a variety of dental clinic configurations.Methods:We performed aerosol measurement studies in endodontic, orthodontic, periodontic, pediatric, and general dentistry clinics. We used an optical aerosol spectrometer and wearable particulate matter sensors to measure real-time aerosol concentration from the vantage point of the dentist during routine care in a variety of clinic configurations (eg, open bay, single room, partitioned operatories). We compared the impact of aerosol mitigation strategies (eg, ventilation and high-volume evacuation (HVE), and prevalence of particulate matter) in the dental clinic environment before, during, and after high-speed drilling, slow–speed drilling, and ultrasonic scaling procedures.Results:Conical and ISOVAC HVE were superior to standard-tip evacuation for aerosol-generating procedures. When aerosols were detected in the environment, they were rapidly dispersed within minutes of completing the aerosol-generating procedure. Few aerosols were detected in dental clinics, regardless of configuration, when conical and ISOVAC HVE were used.Conclusions:Dentists should consider using conical or ISOVAC HVE rather than standard-tip evacuators to reduce aerosols generated during routine clinical practice. Furthermore, when such effective aerosol mitigation strategies are employed, dentists need not leave dental chairs fallow between patients because aerosols are rapidly dispersed.

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.This narrative review provides emergency clinicians with a focused update of the resuscitation and airway management of COVID-19.Patients with COVID-19 and septic shock should be resuscitated with buffered/balanced crystalloids. If hypotension is present despite intravenous fluids, vasopressors including norepinephrine should be initiated. Stress dose steroids are recommended for patients with severe or refractory septic shock. Airway management is the mainstay of initial resuscitation in patients with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS should be managed similarly to those ARDS patients without COVID-19. Clinicians should not delay intubation if indicated. In patients who are more clinically stable, physicians can consider a step-wise approach as patients' oxygenation needs escalate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are recommended over elective intubation. Prone positioning, even in awake patients, has been shown to lower intubation rates and improve oxygenation. Strategies consistent with ARDSnet can be implemented in this patient population, with a goal tidal volume of 4-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight and targeted plateau pressures30 cm HThis review presents a concise update of the resuscitation strategies and airway management techniques in patients with COVID-19 for emergency medicine clinicians.

Background Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), characterized primarily by diffuse diarrhea in the setting of recent healthcare and antibiotic exposure, maintains significantly high rates of diagnosis in the U.S., even in the emergency department (ED). Recent updates in the literature concerning CDI should be considered for effective clinical practice in the ED setting. Objective This narrative review provides an evidence-based summary of current data for the ED-based evaluation and management of CDI. Discussion Substantial literature on the risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and treatment regimens have recently published concerning CDI. These studies include evaluation of risks associated with specific antibiotic classes, demonstrating that even single doses of antibiotics pose significant risk of CDI. Disproportional increases in elderly CDI rates show particular vulnerability in this population. Updated literature reveals presenting symptoms with wide ranges in rates of diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and nausea with vomiting. In some patients diarrhea may be altogether absent, clouding clinical suspicion. Classification primarily centers on a non-severe/severe division from the IDSA. Treatment has largely shifted away from metronidazole as a first-line antibiotic, instead focusing on oral vancomycin and fidaxomicin, even for an initial episode of CDI in an uncomplicated patient. Attention to hand hygiene and adherence to contact precautions are key to infection prevention. Conclusions CDI cause significant illness throughout the U.S. Successful CDI diagnosis and management in the ED require current knowledge of risk, presentation, diagnosis, and proper antibiotic treatment.

Background The national rate of syphilis has increased among persons who inject drugs (PWID). Missouri is no exception, with increases in early syphilis (ES), congenital syphilis, and PWID, especially in nonurban counties. Methods Disease intervention specialist records for ES cases in Missouri (2012–2018) were examined. Drug use was classified as injection drug use (IDU) (opioid or methamphetamine) or non-IDU (opioid, methamphetamine, or cocaine). Rates were compared based on residence, sex of sex partner, and drug use. Results Rates of ES in Missouri increased 365%, particularly in small metropolitan and rural areas (1170%). Nonurban areas reported a higher percentage of persons with ES who used injection drugs (12%–15%) compared with urban regions (2%–5%). From 2012 to 2018, women comprised an increasing number of ES cases (8.3%–21%); 93% of women were of childbearing age. Increasingly more women in rural areas with ES also reported IDU during this time (8.4%–21.1%). Conclusions As syphilis increases in small metropolitan and rural regions, access to high-quality and outreach-based sexual health services is imperative. Healthcare policy to equip health departments with harm reduction services and drug treatment resources offers an opportunity to impact both syphilis increases as well as health outcomes associated with IDU.

Background Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) are frequently admitted for invasive infections. Medications for OUD (MOUD) may improve outcomes in hospitalized patients. Methods In this retrospective cohort of 220 admissions to a tertiary care center for invasive infections due to OUD, we compared 4 MOUD treatment strategies: methadone, buprenorphine, methadone taper for detoxification, and no medication to determine whether there were differences in parenteral antibiotic completion and readmission rates. Results The MOUDs were associated with increased completion of parenteral antimicrobial therapy (64.08% vs 46.15%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.08; 95% CI, 1.23–3.61). On multivariate analysis, use of MOUD maintenance with either buprenorphine (OR = 0.38; 95% CI, .17–.85) or methadone maintenance (OR = 0.43; 95% CI, .20–.94) and continuation of MOUD on discharge (OR = 0.35; 95% CI, .18–.67) was associated with lower 90-day readmissions. In contrast, use of methadone for detoxification followed by tapering of the medication without continuation on discharge was not associated with decreased readmissions (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, .62–5.10). Conclusions Long-term MOUDs, regardless of selection, are an integral component of care in patients hospitalized with OUD-related infections. Patients with OUD should have arrangements made for MOUDs to be continued after discharge, and MOUDs should not be discontinued before discharge.

Objectives To identify the incidence, characteristics, and factors associated with against medical advice (AMA) discharge among hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) and injection related infections (eg, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, epidural abscesses). Methods This retrospective cohort study evaluated adults with OUD admitted to an academic medical center from January 1, 2016 to January 7, 2019 for an invasive injection related infection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent factors associated with AMA discharge. Results Among 262 adults admitted with serious injection related infections and comorbid OUD, 138 received inpatient medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Univariate analysis showed a decreased odds ratio (OR) of AMA discharge when patients received MOUD inpatient (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.34-0.91.). Adjusting for covariates associated with social determinants of health and other substance use, inpatient receipt of MOUD was associated with a decreased risk of AMA discharge (adjusted OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.028-0.84). Conclusions Among patients with OUD and serious injection related infections, inpatient initiation of MOUD is associated with decreased risk of AMA discharge.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) has been an invaluable yet limited resource when it comes to protecting healthcare workers against infection during the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In the US, N95 respirator supply chains are severely strained and conservation strategies are needed. A multidisciplinary team at the Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, and BJC Healthcare was formed to implement a program to disinfect N95 respirators. The process described extends the life of N95 respirators using vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) disinfection and allows healthcare workers to retain their own N95 respirator across a large metropolitan healthcare system.

Introduction Tuberculosis (TB) is a common disease worldwide, affecting nearly one-third of the world's population. While TB has decreased in frequency in the United States, it remains an important infection to diagnose and treat. Objective This narrative review discusses the evaluation and management of tuberculosis, with an emphasis on those factors most relevant for the emergency clinician. Discussion TB is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis and is highly communicable through aerosolized particles. A minority of patients will develop symptomatic, primary disease. Most patients will overcome the initial infection or develop a latent infection, which can reactivate. Immunocompromised states increase the risk of primary and reactivation TB. Symptoms include fever, prolonged cough, weight loss, and hemoptysis. Initial diagnosis often includes a chest X-ray, followed by serial sputum cultures. If the patient has a normal immune system and a normal X-ray, active TB can be excluded. Newer tests, including nucleic acid amplification testing, can rapidly diagnose active TB with high sensitivity. Treatment for primary and reactivation TB differs from latent TB. Extrapulmonary forms can occur in a significant proportion of patients and involve a range of different organ systems. Patients with human immunodeficiency virus are high-risk and require specific considerations. Conclusions TB is a disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The emergency clinician must consider TB in the appropriate setting, based on history and examination. Accurate diagnosis and rapid therapy can improve patient outcomes and reduce the spread of this communicable disease.

Background Emergency Departments (EDs) are a care source for patients with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). St. Louis, MO reports among the highest rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia infection. We examined STD treatment in a high-volume urban ED, in St. Louis MO, to identify factors that may influence treatment. Methods A retrospective chart review and analysis was conducted on visits to a high volume, academic ED in St. Louis, MO where patients received a gonorrhea/chlamydia nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) with a valid matching test result over two years. Using multiple logistic regression, we examined available predictors for under and overtreatment. Results NAATs were performed on 3.3% of all ED patients during the study period. Overall prevalence was 6.9% for gonorrhea (95% CI: 6.2, 7.7) and 11.6% for chlamydia (95% CI: 10.6, 12.5). Race was not a statistically significant predictor for undertreatment but Black patients were significantly more likely to be overtreated compared to White patients. (OR 1.83, 95% CI: 1.5, 2.2). Females were more likely to be undertreated when positive for infection compared to males (OR 7.34, 95% CI: 4.8, 11.2) and less likely to be overtreated when negative for infection (OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.2, 0.3). Conclusion The burden of STDs in a high-volume academic ED was significant and treatment varied across groups. Attention should be paid to particular groups, specifically women and patients reporting Black as their race, to ensure appropriate treatment is administered. Patients would benefit from targeted STD management protocols and training in the ED.

Objective:To assess potential transmission of antibiotic-resistant organisms (AROs) using surrogate markers and bacterial cultures.Design:Pilot study.Setting:A 1,260-bed tertiary-care academic medical center.Participants:The study included 25 patients (17 of whom were on contact precautions for AROs) and 77 healthcare personnel (HCP).Methods:Fluorescent powder (FP) and MS2 bacteriophage were applied in patient rooms. HCP visits to each room were observed for 2–4 hours; hand hygiene (HH) compliance was recorded. Surfaces inside and outside the room and HCP skin and clothing were assessed for fluorescence, and swabs were collected for MS2 detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and selective bacterial cultures.Results:Transfer of FP was observed for 20 rooms (80%) and 26 HCP (34%). Transfer of MS2 was detected for 10 rooms (40%) and 15 HCP (19%). Bacterial cultures were positive for 1 room and 8 HCP (10%). Interactions with patients on contact precautions resulted in fewer FP detections than interactions with patients not on precautions (P < .001); MS2 detections did not differ by patient isolation status. Fluorescent powder detections did not differ by HCP type, but MS2 was recovered more frequently from physicians than from nurses (P = .03). Overall, HH compliance was better among HCP caring for patients on contact precautions than among HCP caring for patients not on precautions (P = .003), among nurses than among other nonphysician HCP at room entry (P = .002), and among nurses than among physicians at room exit (P = .03). Moreover, HCP who performed HH prior to assessment had fewer fluorescence detections (P = .008).Conclusions:Contact precautions were associated with greater HCP HH compliance and reduced detection of FP and MS2.

BackgroundPersons who inject drugs (PWID) are frequently admitted for serious injection-related infections (SIRIs). Outcomes and adherence to oral antibiotics for PWID with patient-directed discharge (PDD) remain understudied.MethodsWe conducted a prospective multicenter bundled quality improvement project of PWID with SIRI at 3 hospitals in Missouri. All PWID with SIRI were offered multidisciplinary care while inpatient, including the option of addiction medicine consultation and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). All patients were offered oral antibiotics in the event of a PDD either at discharge or immediately after discharge through an infectious diseases telemedicine clinic. Additional support services included health coaches, a therapist, a case manager, free clinic follow-up, and medications in an outpatient bridge program. Patient demographics, comorbidities, 90-day readmissions, and substance use disorder clinic follow-up were compared between PWID with PDD on oral antibiotics and those who completed intravenous (IV) antibiotics using an as-treated approach.ResultsOf 166 PWID with SIRI, 61 completed IV antibiotics inpatient (37%), while 105 had a PDD on oral antibiotics (63%). There was no significant difference in 90-day readmission rates between groups (P = .819). For PWID with a PDD on oral antibiotics, 7.6% had documented nonadherence to antibiotics, 67% had documented adherence, and 23% were lost to follow-up. Factors protective against readmission included antibiotic and MOUD adherence, engagement with support team, and clinic follow-up.ConclusionsPWID with SIRI who experience a PDD should be provided with oral antibiotics. Multidisciplinary outpatient support services are needed for PWID with PDD on oral antibiotics.

The objective of this study is to evaluate whether pregnant women receive appropriate treatment, undertreatment, or overtreatment in the emergency department (ED) when they are tested for chlamydia and gonorrhea as compared to non-pregnant women. In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed visits made to an urban ED from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2014, with testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea (n = 3908). Using multiple logistic regression, we compared undertreatment and overtreatment in women controlling for pregnancy, age, race, and sexually transmitted infection International Statistical Classifications of Diseases (ICD)-9 coded diagnosis. Pregnant women were significantly more likely to be undertreated when positive for infection as compared to non-pregnant women (OR 2.94; 95% CI, 1.47–5.95) and significantly less likely to be overtreated when negative for infection (OR 0.40; 95% CI, 0.31–0.53) as compared to non-pregnant women. Pregnant women may not be receiving appropriate treatment when they present to the ED with chlamydia or gonorrhea. Attention should be paid to this group when administering chlamydia and gonorrhea treatment to ensure appropriate care and follow-up.

Background: We examined clinical outcomes among combat casualties with genitourinary injuries after blast trauma. Methods: Characteristics, clinical care, urologic complications, and infections for subjects enrolled in the Trauma Infectious Disease Outcomes Study (TIDOS) were collected from Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sources. Logistic regression identified predictors for urinary tract infections (UTIs) after genitourinary trauma. Results: Among 530 TIDOS enrollees who entered VA care, 89 (17%) sustained genitourinary trauma. The majority of subjects (93%) were injured via a blast and 27% had a dismounted complex blast injury (DCBI). Sexual dysfunction was reported with 36% of subjects, whereas 14% had urinary retention/incontinence and 8% had urethral stricture. Urologic complications were comparable between patients with and without DCBIs. Nineteen (21%) subjects had one or more UTI with a total of 40 unique UTI events (25% during initial hospitalization and 75% during subsequent DOD or VA care). The UTI incidence rate was 0.89 per patient-year during initial hospitalization, 0.05 per patient-year during DOD follow-up, and 0.07 per patient-year during VA healthcare. Subjects with UTIs had a higher proportion of bladder injury (53% vs. 13%; p

BackgroundSince its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsThe Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.ConclusionsUsing a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

We interviewed persons who inject drugs (PWID) to understand perceptions of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection. Knowledge of PrEP was poor. Patients felt that PrEP was for sexual intercourse rather than injection drug use, and PWID managed on medications for opioid use disorder felt that they had no need for PrEP.

Background Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Methods IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Dental health care personnel (DHCP) may be at increased risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus that causes COVID-19, as well as other clinically important pathogens. Proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces occupational exposure to pathogens. The authors performed an assessment of PPE donning and doffing practices among DHCP, using a fluorescent marker as a surrogate for pathogen transmission.Participants donned PPE (that is, disposable gown, gloves, face mask, and eye protection) and the fluorescent marker was applied to their palms and abdomen. DHCP then doffed PPE according to their usual practices. The donning and doffing processes were video recorded, areas of fluorescence were noted, and protocol deviations were assessed. Statistical analyses included frequency, type, and descriptions of protocol deviations and factors associated with fluorescence.Seventy DHCP were enrolled. The donning and doffing steps with the highest frequency of protocol deviations were hand hygiene (66% of donning and 78% of doffing observations involved a deviation) and disposable gown use (63% of donning and 60% of doffing observations involved a deviation). Fluorescence was detected on 69% of DHCP after doffing, most frequently on hands. An increasing number of protocol deviations was significantly associated with increased risk of fluorescence. DHCP with a gown doffing deviation, excluding doffing out of order, were more likely to have fluorescence detected.DHCP self-contamination was common with both donning and doffing PPE.Proper use of PPE is an important component of occupational health.