Sharon Elizabeth Mace

Objective: To provide an overview of the literature on disaster preparedness regarding surge capacity with a particular focus on vulnerable populations during a pandemic.Design: The Disaster Preparedness and Response Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians addressed the topic of vulnerable populations during a pandemic. A workgroup of nine physicians with academic and/or disaster deployment experience was formed. A literature review focused on individuals with access and functional needs, also referred to as special healthcare needs (SHCN) or vulnerable individuals, was performed. Search terms included pandemic, public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), disaster, vulnerable population, individuals with access and functional needs, special health care needs (SHCN), surge capacity, and communications, medical care, independence, supervision, and transportation (CMIST). Search strategies included medical sources such as PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Reviews were performed by a librarian. In addition, relevant articles from the bibliographies of included studies and more recent articles identified by committee members were included. The workgroup evaluated the literature and identified issues regarding surge capacity occurring during a pandemic that particularly impacted the SHCN population. Potential solutions were identified. Results: Vulnerable individuals are at greater risk during a pandemic than the general population, although potential solutions to mitigate the impact of a pandemic on vulnerable individuals are possible. Conclusions: Although pandemics can have significant adverse effects on the general population, vulnerable individuals have the greatest morbidity and mortality and are at the greatest risk. Efforts are warranted to better address the negative impact of a pandemic, not just for the general population but also for individuals with access and functional needs, and to find solutions that can help mitigate the consequences of a pandemic.

Objective: To provide an overview of the literature on disaster preparedness regarding surge capacity with a particular focus on vulnerable populations during a pandemic.Design: The Disaster Preparedness and Response Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians addressed the topic of vulnerable populations during a pandemic. A workgroup of nine physicians with academic and/or disaster deployment experience was formed. A literature review focused on individuals with access and functional needs, also referred to as special healthcare needs (SHCN) or vulnerable individuals, was performed. Search terms included pandemic, public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), disaster, COVID-19, vulnerable population, individuals with access and functional needs, special health care needs (SHCN), surge capacity, and communications, medical care, independence, supervision, and transportation (CMIST). Search strategies included medical sources such as PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Reviews were performed by a librarian. In addition, relevant articles from the bibliographies of included studies and more recent articles identified by committee members were included. The workgroup evaluated the literature and identified issues regarding surge capacity occurring during a pandemic that particularly impacted the SHCN population. Potential solutions were identified.Results: Vulnerable individuals are at greater risk during a pandemic than the general population, although potential solutions to mitigate the impact of a pandemic on vulnerable individuals are possible. Conclusions: Although pandemics can have significant adverse effects on the general population, vulnerable individuals have the greatest morbidity and mortality and are at the greatest risk. Efforts are warranted to better address the negative impact of a pandemic, not just for the general population but also for individuals with access and functional needs, and to find solutions that can help mitigate the consequences of a pandemic.

Objective: To provide an overview of the literature on disaster preparedness regarding surge capacity with a particular focus on vulnerable populations during a pandemic.Design: The Disaster Preparedness and Response Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians addressed the topic of vulnerable populations during a pandemic. A workgroup of nine physicians with academic and/or disaster deployment experience was formed. A literature review focused on individuals with access and functional needs, also referred to as special healthcare needs (SHCN) or vulnerable individuals, was performed. Search terms included pandemic, public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), disaster, COVID-19, vulnerable population, individuals with access and functional needs, special health care needs (SHCN), surge capacity, and CMIST (communications, medical care, independence, supervision, and transportation). Search strategies included medical sources such as PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Reviews were performed by a librarian. In addition, relevant articles from the bibliographies of included studies and more recent articles identified by committee members were included. The workgroup evaluated the literature and identified issues regarding surge capacity occurring during a pandemic that particularly impacted the SHCN population. Potential solutions were identified. Results: Vulnerable individuals are at greater risk during a pandemic than the general population, although potential solutions to mitigate the impact of a pandemic on vulnerable individuals are possible.Conclusions: Although pandemics can have significant adverse effects on the general population, vulnerable individuals have the greatest morbidity and mortality and are at the greatest risk. Efforts are warranted to better address the negative impact of a pandemic, not just for the general population but also for individuals with access and functional needs, and to find solutions that can help mitigate the consequences of a pandemic.

Objective: To provide an overview of the literature on disaster preparedness regarding surge capacity, with a particular focus on vulnerable populations during a pandemic.Design: The Disaster Preparedness and Response Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians addressed the topic of vulnerable populations during a pandemic. A workgroup of nine physicians with academic and/or disaster deployment experience was formed. A literature review focused on individuals with access and functional needs, also referred to as special healthcare needs (SHCNs) or vulnerable individuals, was performed. Search terms included pandemic, public health emergency of international concern, disaster, COVID-19, vulnerable population, individuals with access and functional needs, special healthcare needs (SHCN), surge capacity, and CMIST (communications, medical care, independence, supervision, and transportation). Search strategies included medical sources such as PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Reviews were performed by a librarian. In addition, relevant articles from the bibliographies of included studies and more recent articles identified by committee members were included. The workgroup evaluated the literature and identified issues regarding surge capacity occurring during a pandemic that particularly impacted the SHCN population. Potential solutions were identified.Results: Vulnerable individuals are at greater risk during a pandemic than the general population, although potential solutions to mitigate the impact of a pandemic on vulnerable individuals are possible.Conclusions: Although pandemics can have significant adverse effects on the general population, vulnerable individuals have the greatest morbidity and mortality and are at greatest risk. Efforts are warranted to better address the negative impact of a pandemic, not just for the general population, but also for individuals with access and functional needs, and to find solutions that can help mitigate the consequences of a pandemic.

Introduction: Procedural sedation (PS) is commonly performed in the emergency department (ED). Nil per os (nothing by mouth) (NPO) guidelines extrapolated from standards for patients undergoing elective procedures in the operating room have been applied to ED PS patients. There has been no large study of ED PS patients comparing differences in adverse events and PS success rates based on NPO status. Methods: From a cohort of consecutive ED PS patients of all ages in the 20 EDs of one hospital system—one quaternary ED, four tertiary EDs, six community hospital EDs, one rural ED, two pediatric EDs, and six freestanding EDs in two states in the Midwest and South—we conducted a retrospective analysis on a prospective database over 183 months from April 2000–June 2015. Primary outcome was the incidence of side effects and complications, which comprised the adverse effects. The side effects were nausea, vomiting, itching/rash, emergence reaction, myoclonus, paradoxical reaction, cough, and hiccups. Complications were oxygen desaturation <90%, respiratory depression (respiratory rate <8), apnea, tachypnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia. Normal vital signs were age dependent. Secondary outcome was successful sedation defined as completion of the procedure. We examined the association between adverse events and successful sedation with NPO status. Results: Of 3,274 visits, exact NPO status was known in 2,643 visits. Comparison of NPO <8 hours in 1,388 patients vs ≥ 8 hours in 1,255 patients revealed side effects 5.5% vs 4.5% (P = 0.28); complications 11.9% vs 17.7% (P < 0.001); adverse events 16.3% vs 21.5% (P < 0.001), interventions 4.1% vs 4.4% (P = 0.73), and procedural completions 94.3% vs 89.7% (P < 0.001). After adjustment for age, sex, transfer status, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status classification, race, primary sedative, multiple sedatives, sedative plus analgesic, and primary analgesic, we found no association betweenNPOstatus and side effects (P = 0.68), complications (P = 0.48), or adverse effects (P = 0.26); however, procedural completion rate remained significantly higher for NPO < 8 hours (P = 0.007). Conclusion: A nil per os status ≥8 hours may have similar or worse outcomes than NPO <8 hours, which is contrary to many suggested guidelines. Strict adherence to NPO guidelines in ED procedural sedation patients may not be necessary.

Pain is a common complaint in the emergency department. An alternative to opioids is desirable. Oral medications are not feasible with gastrointestinal disorders or NPO. Intravenous medications require skill and time. Intravenous/intramuscular medications are painful with potential needlestick injury. Intranasal medications have rapid onset, easy administration, do not need skilled providers, and no risk of needlestick injury. A total of 28 adults with acute pain (numeric rating scale ≥ 4) received intranasal ketorolac. Numeric rating scale decreased in all: 32% complete pain relief, median (interquartile range) decrease −5 (−6.8 to −4) (p < .001). Pain relief onset was median [interquartile range] 5 (2.3, 15.0) min. Vital signs remained normal. There were no nasal mucosal changes, no complications. Minor side effects, mostly nasal burning, in 43%, resolved within 5 min. Patients and nurses were satisfied with intranasal ketorolac, and would use it again. Intranasal ketorolac had a rapid onset, was effective, safe, well tolerated with minor side effects that resolved quickly.

Objective: To evaluate procedural sedation (PS) in infants/children, performed by emergency physicians in a general (nonpediatric) emergency department (ED). Methods: Procedural sedation prospectively recorded on a standardized form over 15 years. Demographics, sedatives, and analgesia associations with adverse events were explored with logistic regressions. Results: Of 3274 consecutive PS, 1177 were pediatric: 2 months to 21 years, mean age (±SD) 8.7 ± 5.2 years, 63% boys, 717 White, 435 Black, 25 other. Eight hundred and seventy were American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 1, 256 ASA 2, 39 ASA 3, 11 ASA 4, 1 ASA 5. Procedural sedation indications are as follows: fracture reduction (n = 649), dislocation reduction (n = 114), suturing/wound care (n = 244), lumbar puncture (n = 49), incision and drainage (n = 37), foreign body removal (n = 28), other (n = 56). Sedatives were ketamine (n = 762), propofol ( = 354), benzodiazepines (n = 157), etomidate (n = 39), barbiturates (n = 39). There were 47.4% that received an intravenous opioid. Success rate was 100%. Side effects included nausea/vomiting, itching/rash, emergence reaction, myoclonus, paradoxical reaction, cough, hiccups. Complications were oxygen desaturation less than 90%, bradypnea respiratory rate less than 8, apnea, tachypnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia. Normal range of vital signs was age-dependent. Seventy-four PS (6.3%) resulted in a side effect and 8 PS (3.2%) a complication. No one died, required hospital admission, intubation, or any invasive procedure. Conclusions: Adverse events in infants/children undergoing PS in a general ED are low and comparable to a pediatric ED at a children's hospital. Pediatric PS can be done safely and effectively in a general ED by nonpediatric EM physicians for a wide array of procedures.