The disposition classification system allows conceptual classification of patients for suitable disposition, including those deemed safe for early discharge home during surges in demand. Clinical criteria allowing real-time categorisation of patients are awaited.

Hospital surge capacity for standard inpatient beds may be greater than previously believed. Reverse triage, if appropriately harnessed, can be a major contributor to surge capacity.

: By removing the viral load-negative individuals and confirming the initial Vironostika-LS EIA results by avidity testing, the incidence estimate was lowered from 1.73% to 0.94% per year in 2001 and from 1.90% to 0.56% per year in 2003. Viral suppression affects the performance of the cross-sectional incidence tests, which rely on antibody titer. In addition, 2% (10 of 426) of all HIV-infected individuals who use the JHH ED for medical care seem to suppress HIV to undetectable levels without ARVs.

In 2001, "The Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine" was first published. This document, the first of its kind, was the result of an extensive practice analysis of emergency department (ED) visits and several expert panels, overseen by representatives from six collaborating professional organizations (the American Board of Emergency Medicine, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors, and the Emergency Medicine Residents' Association). Every 2 years, the document is reviewed by these organizations to identify practice changes, incorporate new evidence, and identify perceived deficiencies. For this revision, a seventh organization was included, the American Academy of Emergency Medicine.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2014;21:574-598 © 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine E mergency medicine (EM) is the only medical specialty that has a scientifically derived and commonly accepted description of the domain of its clinical practice. That document, "The Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine" (EM Model), was developed through the collaboration of six organizations: the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM-the administrative organization for the project), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD), the Emergency Medicine Residents' Association (EMRA), the Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine (RRC-EM), and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). Development of the EM Model was based on an extensive practice analysis of the specialty. The practice analysis relied on both empiric data gathered from actual emergency department (ED) visits and several expert panels.1 The resulting product was first published in 2001 2 and has successfully served as the common source document for all EM organizations. One of its strengths is incorporating the reality that EM is a specialty driven by symptoms, not diagnoses, requiring simultaneous therapeutic and diagnostic interventions.The task force that developed the EM Model recommended that a new task force, composed of representatives from all six organizations, be formed every 2 years to assess the success of the document in accomplishing its objective of supporting the ongoing development of the specialty of EM, to consider alterations to the EM Model suggested by the collaborating organizations, and to recommend changes to the six sponsoring organizations.The initial 2-year review occurred in 2003, with representatives from each of the six organizations suggesting changes and reporting how their respective organizations had used the document. The initial 2-year update was published in Annals of Emergency Medicine and Academic Emergency Medicine in 2005.3,4 Subsequently, a task force met every 2 years to review the EM Model THE EM MODELThe EM Model is a three-dimensional descri...

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care ultrasound exam for undifferentiated shock in patients presenting to the emergency department.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and research meeting abstracts were searched from 1966 to June 2018 for relevant studies. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality, and meta-analysis was conducted to pool performance data of individual categories of shock.ResultsA total of 5,097 non-duplicated studies were identified, of which 58 underwent full-text review; 4 were included for analysis. Study quality by QUADAS-2 was considered overall a low risk of bias. Pooled positive likelihood ratio values ranged from 8.25 (95% CI 3.29 to 20.69) for hypovolemic shock to 40.54 (95% CI 12.06 to 136.28) for obstructive shock. Pooled negative likelihood ratio values ranged from 0.13 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.48) for obstructive shock to 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.62) for mixed-etiology shock.ConclusionThe rapid ultrasound for shock and hypotension (RUSH) exam performs better when used to rule in causes of shock, rather than to definitively exclude specific etiologies. The negative likelihood ratios of the exam by subtype suggest that it most accurately rules out obstructive shock.