Gottlieb, Michael

Abstract Skin and soft tissues infections (SSTIs) are common conditions, affecting millions worldwide. SSTIs range from uncomplicated cellulitis to necrotizing fasciitis and can be divided into non-purulent and purulent forms. Non-purulent SSTI is most commonly associated with beta-haemolytic streptococci, while purulent SSTI is typically associated with Staphylococcus aureus . Cellulitis most commonly presents with acute warmth, pain, tenderness to palpation, erythema, and oedema. Skin abscess typically presents with a fluctuant tender area with erythema. Laboratory testing is of limited use in most patients. Point-of-care ultrasound is useful for distinguishing cellulitis from abscess if the diagnosis is unclear. Management of SSTI includes antibiotics such as penicillin VK, dicloxacillin, or a cephalosporin, while treatment for skin abscess includes incision and drainage, with antibiotics recommended in select patients. Patients should elevate the affected extremity when possible, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may reduce pain and inflammation. The effectiveness of decolonization for patients with recurrent cellulitis or skin abscess is controversial. While most patients with cellulitis or skin abscess are appropriate for discharge with follow-up, patients with sepsis and those with challenges adhering to therapy, immunosuppression, or failed outpatient therapy should be referred to the emergency department. Novel antibiotics such as tedizolid, delafloxacin, omadacycline, and ceftaroline may be considered in select cases.

This study examines the patient- and hospital-level variation in time to initiation of inpatient management among patients admitted to general medical services.

ABSTRACT Clinical pharmacists are increasingly recognized as vital contributors to acute stroke care, yet their role remains inconsistently defined and underutilized across health care systems. This consensus statement explores the expanding presence of clinical pharmacists within interdisciplinary stroke teams, particularly in the management of both acute ischemic stroke ( AIS ) and hemorrhagic stroke. This consensus statement panel was composed of clinical pharmacists, emergency medicine physicians, and a vascular neurologist. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation ( GRADE ) approach was used to assess the level of certainty and strength of recommendations. We focused on two questions regarding the clinical pharmacist's role in caring for adult patients presenting to the emergency department ( ED ) with AIS or hemorrhagic stroke. Despite the very low level of evidence, a consensus was reached for the following recommendations: (1) clinical pharmacist involvement in AIS care for adult patients presenting to the ED and (2) clinical pharmacist involvement in hemorrhagic stroke care for adult patients presenting to the ED . Based on the available literature, we believe optimizing the clinical pharmacist role is a critical factor in improving time‐sensitive treatment and equity in care delivery.

ABSTRACT Research is important to advance the field of emergency medicine and improve patient care. As such, emergency medicine residents are required to complete a scholarly project during their training. This experience provides an opportunity to enhance their exposure to research, expanding their skillset as both producers and consumers of the medical literature. However, the process may be overwhelming to launch, especially for residents. This Educator's Blueprint will provide 10 strategies for navigating and optimizing the resident research experience. These strategies include providing structured training, creating a research‐supportive environment, selecting a project using resident‐centric FINER criteria, identifying a research mentor, creating mosaic research experiences, setting expectations, empowering residents, selecting team members for sustainability, providing scaffolding and support during the writing stage, and explaining the peer review process and normalizing rejection or revisions. These strategies will help guide faculty seeking to enhance their learners' research experience.

ABSTRACT Background Academic departments in medicine face increasing pressure to balance clinical productivity with their broader academic missions, including education, scholarship, mentorship, and service. While clinical work is routinely quantified through relative value units (RVUs), non‐clinical academic contributions are inconsistently measured and often undervalued. Academic Value Unit (AVU) systems have emerged as frameworks to quantify these activities, but adoption remains limited due to inconsistent funding models, lack of standardized frameworks, and minimal evidence demonstrating outcomes such as faculty satisfaction, retention, or return on investment (ROI). Methods This concept paper synthesizes current AVU implementation strategies in emergency medicine and proposes an evidence‐informed six‐step framework for AVU design, funding, and sustainability. The framework was informed by a literature review, analysis of institutional dashboards, and multi‐institutional input from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) community, including feedback from a national didactic session at the 2025 SAEM Annual Meeting. Results The proposed framework outlines practical steps for AVU implementation: defining mission‐aligned domains, identifying measurable academic activities, establishing transparent weighting systems, integrating real‐time tracking dashboards, developing sustainable blended funding models, and engaging leadership and faculty through iterative review. The model incorporates customizable templates, adaptable activity menus, and suggested ROI metrics that departments can tailor to local institutional priorities and resources. Conclusions AVU systems offer a structured approach to recognizing and incentivizing non‐clinical academic contributions in emergency medicine. A transparent, mission‐aligned framework supported by sustainable funding and measurable ROI metrics may enhance faculty engagement, equity, and long‐term departmental sustainability. Future work should focus on establishing validated benchmarks for AVU weighting, integrating AVUs with faculty development and wellness initiatives, and evaluating longitudinal outcomes such as retention, satisfaction, and equity.

Abstract Heart failure is a common condition that affects millions of people worldwide and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Acute decompensated heart failure refers to the worsening of symptoms that requires changes in drugs or the start of new treatments such as non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. This review summarizes the current data and provides an evidence based approach to the diagnosis and management of acute decompensated heart failure. The review discusses common nomenclature and classifications of the condition, followed by the diagnostic accuracy of medical history, physical examination, electrocardiography, radiographs of the chest, point-of-care ultrasound, and laboratory testing. Current and emerging medical treatments are also discussed.

AbstractThis first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low‐risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low‐risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non‐obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits.