Hospital emergency departments (EDs) and the emergency physicians, nurses, and other health professionals who provide emergency care in them, are a critical component of the United States (US) health care system in the 21st century. Although access to emergency care has become a de facto right in the United States, funding for emergency care is fragmented and complex, which causes confusion and conflict about who should bear the cost of care. This article examines the tension between universal access to emergency care in the United States and the fragmentary, tenuous, and contentious financial arrangements that make it possible, viewing the issue in context of the historical development, legal and moral foundations, current situation, and future challenges of ED care in the United States. It begins with a review of the origins and evolution of emergency care and of hospital EDs in the United States. It then examines arguments for a right to emergency medical care and for shared obligations of patients to seek and of professionals and society to provide that care. Finally, it reviews current strategies and future prospects for protecting access to emergency care for patients who require it.Advance directives are documents to convey patients' preferences in the event they are unable to communicate them. Patients commonly present to the emergency department near the end of life. Advance directives are an important component of patient-centered care and allow the health care team to treat patients in accordance with their wishes. Common types of advance directives include living wills, health care power of attorney, Do Not Resuscitate orders, and Physician (or Medical) Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST or MOLST). Pitfalls to use of advance directives include confusion regarding the documents themselves, their availability, their accuracy, and agreement between documentation and stated bedside wishes on the part of the patient and family members. Limitations of the documents, as well as approaches to addressing discrepant goals of care, are discussed.Managing sedation in the ventilated emergency department (ED) patient is increasingly important as critical care unit admissions from EDs increase and hospital crowding results in intubated patients boarding for longer periods. The objectives of this review are 3-fold; (1) describe the historical perspective of how sedation of the ventilated patient has changed, (2) summarize the most commonly used sedation and analgesic agents, and (3) provide a practical approach to sedation and analgesia in mechanically ventilated ED patients. We searched PubMed using keywords "emergency department post-intubation sedation," "emergency department critical care length of stay," and "sedation in mechanically ventilated patient." The search results were limited to English language and reviewed for relevance to the subject of interest. Our search resulted in 723 articles that met the criteria for managing sedation in the ventilated ED patient, of which 19 articles were selected and reviewed. Our review of the literature found that the level of sedation and practices of sedation and analgesia in the ED environment have downstream consequences on patient care including overall patient centered outcomes even after the patient has left the ED. It is reasonable to begin with analgesia in isolation, although sedating medications should be used when patients remain uncomfortable and agitated after initial interventions are performed.
  The ramped position is often used during endotracheal intubation to improve oxygenation, improve laryngeal views, and reduce airway complications. We sought to compare the impact of ramp angle and bed height on intubation outcomes during simulated endotracheal intubation.
 
  We enrolled emergency medicine residents and fourth-year medical students to perform simulated direct laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in random order with the mannequin in the following combinations of ramp angles and bed heights; ramp angles of 25° and 45° at bed heights including knee, mid-thigh, umbilicus, xiphoid, and nipple/intermammary fold. Our primary outcome was the reported percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score. Secondary outcomes included number of laryngoscopy attempts and intubation time.
 
  We enrolled 25 participants. There was no difference in reported POGO scores at 25° between bed heights, but at 45°, the umbilicus bed height had an improved reported POGO score (20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7-33, 
  <0.01) relative to xyphoid. The nipple/inframammary fold height required longer intubation times in seconds (mean difference [MD] 95% CI) at 25°, (MD, 23.9 [4.6-37.6], 
  <0.01) and more laryngoscopy attempts at 45° (MD, 0.48 [0.16-0.79], 
  <0.01) relative to xyphoid. There was no difference in laryngoscopy attempts and video POGO between 25° and 45° at all bed heights, but reported POGO at the umbilicus position was better at 25° than 45° (12 [1-23], 
  =0.03).
 
  The umbilicus bed height resulted in the highest reported POGO at 45°. Nipple/inframammary fold height resulted in worse intubating conditions.
 The umbilicus bed height resulted in the highest reported POGO at 45°. Nipple/inframammary fold height resulted in worse intubating conditions.In 2017, there were ≈47,600 opioid overdose-related deaths in the United States. US emergency department (ED) visits for suspected opioid overdose increased by 30% between July 2016 and September 2017.2 The current US opioid epidemic makes it critical for emergency physicians to be aware of common and uncommon infectious and non-infectious complications of injection drug use. Point-of-care ultrasound has become a widely available, non-invasive diagnostic tool in EDs across the United States and worldwide. The increasing population of injection drug use patients is at risk for serious morbidity and mortality from an array of disease states amenable to ultrasound-based diagnosis. We propose a protocol for clinical ultrasonography in patients who inject drugs (the CUPID protocol), a focused, 3-system point-of-care ultrasound approach emphasizing cardiovascular, thoracic, and musculoskeletal imaging.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/BIBF1120.html  The protocol is a screening tool, designed to detect high risk infectious and noninfectious complications of injection drug use.