The COVID-19 outbreak has disrupted global health care networks and caused thousands of deaths and an international economic downturn. Multiple drugs are being used on patients with COVID-19 based on theoretical and in vitro therapeutic targets. Several of these therapies have been studied, but many have limited evidence behind their use, and clinical trials to evaluate their efficacy are either ongoing orhave not yet begun. This review summarizes the existing evidence for medications currently under investigation for treatment of COVID-19, including remdesivir, chloroquine/hydroxychlorquine, convalescent plasma, lopinavir/ritonavir, IL-6 inhibitors, corticosteroids, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Background Many point-of-care ultrasound devices are now “pocket-sized” or handheld, allowing easy transport during travel and facilitating use in crowded spaces or in austere low-resource settings. Concerns remain about their durability, image quality, and clinical utility in those environments. Method Five emergency physicians with training in point-of-care ultrasound employed the Butterfly iQ, a novel handheld ultrasound device, in routine clinical care in a busy, high-acuity African emergency department over a period of 10 weeks. We retrospectively evaluated the performance of the Butterfly iQ from the perspectives of both the clinicians using the device and expert ultrasound faculty reviewing the images. Results We found advantages of the Butterfly iQ in a high-acuity African emergency department include its use of a single probe for multiple functions, small size, ease of transport, relatively low cost, and good image quality in most functions. Disadvantages include large probe footprint, lower, though still adequate, cardiac imaging quality, frequent overheating, and reliance on internet-based cloud storage, but these were surmountable. We also report a wide variety of patient presentations, pathology, and procedures to which the device was used. Conclusion We conclude the Butterfly iQ is an effective, though imperfect, point-of-care ultrasound device in a low-resource emergency setting. We will continue to employ the device in clinical emergency care and teaching in this setting.

Background Social determinants of health (SDoH) have significant implications for health outcomes in the United States. Emergency departments (EDs) function as the safety nets of the American health care system, caring for many vulnerable populations. ED‐based interventions to assess social risk and mitigate social needs have been reported in the literature. However, the breadth and scope of these interventions have not been evaluated. As the field of social emergency medicine (SEM) expands, a mapping and categorization of previous interventions may help shape future research. We sought to identify, summarize, and characterize ED‐based interventions aimed at mitigating negative SDoH. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify and characterize peer‐reviewed research articles that report ED‐based interventions to address or impact SDoH in the United States. We designed and conducted a search in Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Abstracts and, subsequently, full articles were reviewed independently by two reviewers to identify potentially relevant articles. Included articles were categorized by type of intervention and primary SDoH domain. Reported outcomes were also categorized by type and efficacy. Results A total of 10,856 abstracts were identified and reviewed, and 596 potentially relevant studies were identified. Full article review identified 135 articles for inclusion. These articles were further subdivided into three intervention types: a) provider educational intervention (18%), b) disease modification with SDoH focus (26%), and c) direct SDoH intervention (60%), with 4% including two “types.” Articles were subsequently further grouped into seven SDoH domains: 1) access to care (33%), 2) discrimination/group disparities (7%), 3) exposure to violence/crime (34%), 4) food insecurity (2%), 5) housing issues/homelessness (3%), 6) language/literacy/health literacy (12%), 7) socioeconomic disparities/poverty (10%). The majority of articles reported that the intervention studied was effective for the primary outcome identified (78%). Conclusion Emergency department–based interventions that address seven different SDoH domains have been reported in the peer‐reviewed literature over the past 30 years, utilizing a variety of approaches including provider education and direct and indirect focus on social risk and need. Characterization and understanding of previous interventions may help identify opportunities for future interventions as well as guide a SEM research agenda.

Meeting: None to disclose.Funding and support: By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. AbstractOn December 31, 2019, the Chinese government announced an outbreak of a novel coronavirus, recently named COVID-19. During the following weeks the international medical community has witnessed with unprecedented coverage the public health response both domestically by the Chinese government, and on an international scale as cases have spread to dozens of countries. While much regarding the virus and the Chinese public health response is still unknown, national and public health institutions globally are preparing for a pandemic. As cases and spread of the virus grow, emergency and other front-line providers may become more anxious about the possibility of encountering a potential case. This review describes the tenets of a public health response to an infectious outbreak by using recent historical examples and also by characterizing what is known about the ongoing response to the COVID-19 outbreak.The intent of the review is to empower the practitioner to monitor and evaluate the local, national and global public health response to an emerging infectious disease.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, with its public health implications, high case fatality rate, and strain on hospital resources, will continue to challenge clinicians and researchers alike for months to come. Accurate triage of patients during the pandemic will assign patients to the appropriate level of care, provide the best care for the maximum number of patients, rationally limit personal protective equipment (PPE) usage, and mitigate nosocomial exposures. The authors describe an adapted COVID‐19 pandemic triage algorithm for emergency departments (EDs) guided by the best available evidence and responses to prior pandemics, with recommendations for clinician PPE use for each level of encounter in the setting of an ongoing PPE shortage. Our algorithm adheres to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and supports discharge of patients with mild symptoms coupled with explicit and strict return precautions and infection control education.