Introduction: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a mental health crisis among hospital staff who have been mentally and physically exhausted by uncertainty and unexpected stressors. However, the mental health challenges and complexities faced by hospital staff in the United States has not been fully elucidated. To address this gap, we conducted this study to examine the prevalence and correlates of depression and anxiety among hospital staff in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: The design is a single-center, cross-sectional, online survey evaluating depression and anxiety among all hospital employees (n = 3,500) at a safety-net hospital with a moderate cumulative COVID-19 hospitalization rate between April 30–May 22, 2020. We assessed depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Anxiety was measured with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale. Logistic regression analyses were calculated to identify associations with depression and anxiety.

Results: Of 3,500 hospital employees, 1,246 (36%) responded to the survey. We included 1,232 individuals in the final analysis. Overall, psychological distress was common among the respondents: 21% and 33% of staff reported significant depression and anxiety, respectively, while 46% experienced overwhelming stress due to COVID-19. Notably, staff members overwhelmed by the stress of COVID-19 were seven and nine times more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety, respectively. In addition to stress, individuals with six to nine years of work experience were two times more likely to report moderate or severe depression compared to those with 10 or more years of work experience. Moreover, ancillary staff with direct patient contact (odds ratio [OR] 8.9, confidence interval (CI), 1.46, 173.03) as well as administrative and ancillary staff with indirect patient contact (OR 5.9, CI, 1.06, 111.01) were more likely to be depressed than physicians and advanced providers.

Conclusion: We found that a considerable proportion of staff were suffering from psychological distress. COVID-19-associated depression and anxiety was widespread among hospital staff even in settings with comparatively lower COVID-19 hospitalization rates. Ancillary staff, administrative staff, staff with less job experience, and staff overwhelmed by the stress of COVID-19 are particularly susceptible to negative mental health outcomes. These findings will help inform hospital policymakers on best practices to develop interventions to reduce the mental health burden associated with COVID-19 in vulnerable hospital staff.

Introduction: In the last several decades, South Korea has rapidly adopted Western customs and practices. Yet, cultural differences between South Korea and the United States exist. The purpose ofthis study was to identify and characterize potential cultural differences in the Korean and US institutional review board (IRB) approach to certain topics.

Methods: A qualitative analysis of a 9-item survey, describing 4 research study case scenarios, sent to IRB members from the United States and South Korea. The case scenarios involved the followingissues: (1) the need for consent for retrospective chart review when research subjects receive their care after the study is conceived; (2) child assent; (3) individual versus population benefit; and (4) exception from informed consent in emergency resuscitation research. The free-text responses were analyzed and abstracted for recurrent themes.

Results: Twenty-three of the 45 survey recipients completed the survey, for an overall response rate of 51%. The themes that emerged were as follows: (1) the importance of parental authority among Korean participants versus the importance of child autonomy and child assent among US participants; (2) the recognition of the rights of a proxy or surrogate who can represent an individual’s values by all participants; and (3) the importance of the community, expressed by the Korean respondents, versus individualism, expressed by US respondents.

Conclusion: Whereas US participants appear to emphasize the importance of the individual and the autonomy of a child, the Korean respondents stressed the importance of parental authority andbenefiting the community, above and beyond that of the individual person. However, there was substantial overlap in the themes expressed by respondents from both countries. [West J Emerg Med.2012;13(4):335–341.]

Introduction: The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States (US) prompted widespread containment measures such as shelter-in-place (SIP) orders. The goal of our study was to determine whether there was a significant change in overall volume and proportion of emergency department (ED) encounters since SIP measures began.

Methods: This was a retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study using billing data from January 1, 2017–April 20, 2020. We received data from 141 EDs across 16 states, encompassing a convenience sample of 26,223,438 ED encounters. We used a generalized least squares regression approach to ascertain changes for overall ED encounters, hospital admissions, and New York University ED visit algorithm categories.

Results: ED encounters decreased significantly in the post-SIP period. Overall, there was a 39.6% decrease in ED encounters compared to expected volume in the pre-SIP period. Emergent encounters decreased by 35.8%, while non-emergent encounters decreased by 52.1%. Psychiatric encounters decreased by 30.2%. Encounters related to drugs and alcohol decreased the least, by 9.3% and 27.5%, respectively.

Conclusion: There was a significant overall reduction in ED utilization in the post-SIP period. There was a greater reduction in lower acuity encounters than higher acuity encounters. Of all subtypes of ED encounters, substance abuse- and alcohol-related encounters reduced the least, and injury-related encounters reduced the most.

On December 2, 2015, a terror attack in the city of San Bernardino, California killed 14 Americans and injured 22 in the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. Although emergency personnel and law enforcement officials frequently deal with multi-casualty incidents (MCIs), what occurred that day required an unprecedented response. Most of the severely injured victims were transported to either Loma Linda University Medical Center (LLUMC) or Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (ARMC). These two hospitals operate two designated trauma centers in the region and played crucial roles during the massive response that followed this attack. In an effort to shed a light on our response to others, we provide an account of how these two teaching hospitals prepared for and coordinated the medical care of these victims.

In general, both centers were able to quickly mobilize large number of staff and resources. Prior disaster drills proved to be invaluable. Both centers witnessed excellent teamwork and coordination involving first responders, law enforcement, administration, and medical personnel from multiple specialty services. Those of us working that day felt safe and protected. Although we did identify areas we could have improved upon, including patchy communication and crowd-control, they were minor in nature and did not affect patient care.

MCIs pose major challenges to emergency departments and trauma centers across the country. Responding to such incidents requires an ever-evolving approach as no two incidents will present exactly alike. It is our hope that this article will foster discussion and lead to improvements in  management of future MCIs.

Introduction: Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is an uncommon but rapidly progressive infection that results in grossmorbidity and mortality if not treated in its early stages. The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis(LRINEC) score is used to distinguish NF from other soft tissue infections such as cellulitis or abscess. Thisstudy analyzed the ability of the LRINEC score to accurately rule out NF in patients who were confirmed tohave cellulitis, as well as the capability to differentiate cellulitis from NF.

Methods: This was a 10-year retrospective chart-review study that included emergency department (ED)patients ≥18 years old with a diagnosis of cellulitis or NF. We calculated a LRINEC score ranging from0-13 for each patient with all pertinent laboratory values. Three categories were developed per the originalLRINEC score guidelines denoting NF risk stratification: high risk (LRINEC score ≥8), moderate risk (LRINECscore 6-7), and low risk (LRINEC score ≤5). All cases missing laboratory values were due to the absence ofa C-reactive protein (CRP) value. Since the score for a negative or positive CRP value for the LRINEC scorewas 0 or 4 respectively, a LRINEC score of 0 or 1 without a CRP value would have placed the patient in the“low risk” group and a LRINEC score of 8 or greater without CRP value would have placed the patient in the“high risk” group. These patients missing CRP values were added to these respective groups.

Results: Among the 948 ED patients with cellulitis, more than one-tenth (10.7%, n=102 of 948) weremoderate or high risk for NF based on LRINEC score. Of the 135 ED patients with a diagnosis of NF, 22patients had valid CRP laboratory values and LRINEC scores were calculated. Among the other 113 patientswithout CRP values, six patients had a LRINEC score ≥ 8, and 19 patients had a LRINEC score ≤ 1. Thus, atotal of 47 patients were further classified based on LRINEC score without a CRP value. More than half of theNF group (63.8%, n=30 of 47) had a low risk based on LRINEC ≤5. Moreover, LRINEC appeared to performbetter in the diabetes population than in the non-diabetes population.

Conclusion: The LRINEC score may not be an accurate tool for NF risk stratification and differentiationbetween cellulitis and NF in the ED setting. This decision instrument demonstrated a high false positive ratewhen determining NF risk stratification in confirmed cases of celulitis and a high false negative rate in casesof confirmed NF.