Free Daily Podcast Summary
The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine: Daily Summaries Delivered
by Dr. Ken Milne
Get key takeaways, quotes, and insights from The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine in a 5-minute read. Delivered straight to your inbox.
Latest Episodes
The most recent episodes — sign up to get AI-powered summaries of each one.
- 3 days ago23 min
SGEM#510: Take this Broken Radius and just Cast It.
Reference: Perry DC, et al. Non-surgical casting versus surgical reduction for children with severely displaced distal radial fractures (the CRAFFT Study): a multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial and economic evaluation. Lancet April 2026. Date: May 8, 2026 Dr. Andrew Tagg Guest Skeptic: Dr. Andrew (Andy) Tagg is an Emergency Physician with a special interest in education and lifelong learning. He is the co-founder and website lead of Don’t Forget the Bubbles. Case: A healthy 7-year-old boy presents to the emergency department (ED) with obvious deformity of the wrist after a fall from playground equipment. X-rays show a severely displaced distal radius fracture, with an associated ulnar fracture. The child is neurovascularly intact. But the wrist looks dramatic. It’s quite bent. The child gazes at his arm, a mix of fear and intrigue. You consult the friendly orthopedics specialist who greets the family and recommends reduction under sedation because “it looks too crooked to leave alone.” You recall that in younger children, some fractures can remodel quite well on their own. The child’s father asks you whether you think the boy really needs a procedure to re-align the bones, or if he can just be placed in a cast. Background: Distal radius fractures are among the most common fractures in childhood, and severely displaced injuries create one of those classic tensions between what looks bad on an X-ray and what matters to patients over time. Traditional teaching has favored reduction, often under sedation or general anesthesia, to restore anatomy and avoid concerns about deformity, loss of motion, or unhappy families. But pediatric bone is not adult bone. Younger children have substantial remodeling potential, especially near active growth plates, and prior observational studies suggested that even very displaced distal radial fractures can straighten out over time with good function. Many clinicians still feel uneasy leaving these fractures unreduced. The visual deformity can be alarming. Families may equate straight bones with proper healing. Procedural reduction also comes with costs and potential harms: anesthesia, sedation, procedural pain, wound complications, etc. Clinical Question: In children aged 4 to 10 years with severely displaced distal radial fractures, is non-surgical casting non-inferior to surgical reduction for functional recovery? Reference: Perry DC, et al. Non-surgical casting versus surgical reduction for children with severely displaced distal radial fractures (the CRAFFT Study): a multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial and economic evaluation. Lancet April 2026. Population: Children aged 4 to 10 years from 49 UK hospitals with severely displaced distal radial fractures, either metaphyseal or Salter-Harris II, with or without an associated ulnar fracture. Exclusion: Injury >7 days, complex wrist fractures that were open or extending into the joint, additional fractured bones elsewhere, inability to adhere to trial procedures or follow up. Intervention: Non-surgical casting without purposeful manipulation, without sedation or general anesthesia. Comparison: Surgical reduction under general anesthesia or conscious sedation, with fixation permitted at the surgeon's discretion. Outcome: Primary Outcome: Patient Report Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Score for Children at 3 months. Secondary Outcomes: Pain, health-related quality of life, cosmesis, complications, refracture, unplanned surgery, school absence, parental satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. Trial: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation Authors’ Conclusions: “The CRAFFT trial did not demonstrate non-inferiority of non-surgical casting at 3 months against a conservative margin; however, the observed difference in favour of surgical reduction was small, below thresholds that families considered meaningful, and did not persist beyond early recovery. Surgical reduction was associated with higher costs, early procedural complications, and only a modest improvement in cosmetic appearance, supporting consideration of a cast-first strategy for most children.” Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. Yes The patients were adequately randomized. Yes The randomization process was concealed. Yes The patients were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. Yes The study patients were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). Unsure The patients in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. Yes All participants (patients, clinicians, outcome assessors) were unaware of group allocation. No All groups were treated equally except for the intervention. Unsure Follow-up was complete (i.e. at leas
- 3 weeks ago24 min
SGEM#509: I love the Java Jive & It Loves Me – Preventing Dementia with Coffee and Tea
Date: April 23, 2026 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Manrique Umaña McDermott is an attending physician specializing in Emergency Medicine based in San José, Costa Rica. He has a passion for medical education, is a renowned international speaker and serves as a faculty member in undergraduate Internal Medicine at UCIMED and postgraduate training programs in Emergency Medicine and Family and Community Medicine at the University of Costa Rica (UCR). You can follow him on X and Instagram at @umanamd. Reference: Zhang et al. Coffee and Tea Intake, Dementia Risk, and Cognitive Function. JAMA 2026 March Case: A 47-year-old emergency physician presents to their primary care physician for a rare act of preventive care between a run of night shifts. She drinks 3 large coffees most workdays, switches to tea on post-nights when her hands are vibrating fast enough to start an IV at 20 paces and asks whether her caffeine habit is frying her brain or secretly protecting it. She has heard that coffee is either a miracle, a menace, or both, depending on which headline got posted in the group chat that week. Background: Coffee’s origin story reads like a case report from the annals of caffeinated discovery. Legend traces it back to Ethiopia, where a goat herder observed his animals behaving like over-caffeinated residents after nibbling on certain berries. From there, coffee spread through the Arabian Peninsula, where it was first cultivated and consumed in Yemen, eventually fueling the rise of coffeehouses. By the 17th century, coffee had reached Europe, where it was alternately praised as a miracle tonic and condemned as a suspicious stimulant. Over time, coffee became embedded in global culture, transitioning from a mystical brew to an industrial-scale commodity, and ultimately, a critical adjunct in emergency medicine workflow optimization. Costa Rica takes coffee seriously, arguably more seriously than most emergency departments (EDs) take shift coffee orders. Introduced in the late 18th century, coffee quickly became a cornerstone of the country’s economy and identity. The government actively promoted coffee cultivation, even offering farmers free land to grow it, resulting in a thriving industry based on small family farms rather than large plantations. Costa Rican coffee is renowned for its high quality, thanks to ideal growing conditions: volcanic soil, high altitude, and just enough rain to keep things interesting. The country even banned the production of low-quality coffee. Today, Costa Rica is a leader in sustainable coffee production. So, the next time you’re powering through a night shift, there’s a good chance your cognitive performance is being supported by carefully cultivated beans from a hillside in Central America. Emergency physicians do not need a pathophysiology lecture on caffeine; they need a fresh cup. Coffee is practically a staffing model, while tea is the civilized cousin, and both have long been part of the informal pharmacopeia of night shift survival. The real question is whether our specialty’s favourite legal liquid stimulant does anything beyond keeping our differential diagnoses alive until sunrise. Biologically, the hypothesis is plausible. Coffee and tea contain caffeine and other bioactive compounds, including polyphenols, that may influence oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, vascular function, and insulin sensitivity. These are all pathways that could plausibly matter for cognitive decline and dementia. But human studies have been inconsistent, and many older studies did not clearly distinguish between caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee. Clinical Question: Is long-term intake of caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated coffee, or tea associated with incident dementia and cognitive outcomes? Reference: Zhang et al. Coffee and Tea Intake, Dementia Risk, and Cognitive Function. JAMA 2026 March Population: Adults from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). Excluded: People with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or dementia at baseline; those with implausible total energy intake; and those missing caffeinated beverage intake data. Exposure: Long-term intake of caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea, assessed every 2 to 4 years with validated food frequency questionnaires (FFQs). Comparison: Lower intake categories, especially the lowest quartile or tertile of consumption, depending on the beverage. Outcomes: Primary Outcome: Incident dementia, identified via death records and physician diagnoses. Secondary outcomes: Subjective cognitive decline and objective cognitive function; objective testing was assessed only in the NHS cohort, including a telephone interview for cognitive status (TICS) and composite cognitive measures. Type of Study: Prospective observational cohort study. Authors’ Conclusions: “Greater consumption of caffeinated coffee and tea was associated with lower risk of de
- Apr 18, 202651 min
SGEM #508: How Low Can You Go? Rethinking Lumbar Punctures in Well-Appearing Febrile Infants
Reference: Burstein B, et al. Prediction of Bacteremia and Bacterial Meningitis Among Febrile Infants Aged 28 Days or Younger. JAMA. Published online December 08, 2025. Date: April 3, 2026 Dr. Margarita Ramos Guest Skeptic: Dr. Margarita Ramos is a pediatric hospitalist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences where completed the Master Teacher Leadership Development Program in 2024. Her scholarly interests include equity in medical education and health services research. Case: A 12-day-old boy is brought to the emergency department (ED) by his parents for fever. At home, he felt a little warm, so they took his temperature and found it was 38.3°C. The family called the boy’s pediatrician, who told them to bring him to the ED immediately. The baby has been feeding well. He has had a normal number of wet diapers and stools. He has no other medical history and was born full-term. On your exam, the baby looks good. There is no obvious source for his fever. His parents say to you: “Our pediatrician told us that fevers at this age are worrisome, and our baby may need a lot of testing, including something called a lumbar puncture. We looked it up, and it sounds really scary. Do we have to do all that?” Background: We’re back on the topic of well-appearing febrile infants, and things have changed! Specifically, the “limbo” bar of age for which of the infants requiring a lumbar puncture (LP) has dropped quite a bit. Some may recall practicing at a time when any febrile babies ≤3-months-old were getting an LP. Later, that bar had dropped down to febrile babies ≤28 days getting an LP. Along the way, we’ve had various tools to help guide us in identifying babies at low risk for what was once termed a serious bacterial infection (SBI), including urinary tract infection, bacteremia, and bacterial meningitis. These included tools like the Philadelphia, Rochester, and Boston criteria that risk-stratified based on pre-determined thresholds for temperature, lab tests, urine studies and more. In 2019, the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) derived and validated a clinical decision rule for identifying low-risk febrile infants based on urine, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and procalcitonin. We covered this study in SGEM#296. The rounded PECARN Rule is: Negative urinalysis Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC) ≤4,000/µL Serum procalcitonin ≤0.5 ng/ml In 2021, we saw the limbo bar drop again with new guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) covered on SGEM#341. The age for LP moved down to 22 days. Based on this guideline, the decision to perform LP on infants from 22 to 28 days could be guided by inflammatory markers. There was also another shift. Instead of focusing on SBIs, which included UTIs, one of the most common sources of infection, researchers started to focus on bacteremia and bacterial meningitis, termed invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), which have very bad consequences if missed. Right now, the bar sits around 21–22 days because that’s where the data feels comfortable. And to be fair, newborns are different from older infants. Their immune systems are immature, their symptoms are subtle, and the consequences of missing meningitis are enormous. So naturally, we are cautious. Clinical Question: How accurately can the PECARN rule identify febrile infants 28 days or younger at low risk for invasive bacterial infections? Dr. Brett Burstein Reference: Burstein B, et al. Prediction of Bacteremia and Bacterial Meningitis Among Febrile Infants Aged 28 Days or Younger. JAMA. Published online December 08, 2025. Population: well-appearing febrile infants ≤ 28 days, temperature ≥38°C, from four prospective cohort studies across six countries within the global Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) who underwent testing with PECARN rule components (procalcitonin, ANC, UA/urine dipstick). Excluded: Criteria differed across the included studies. Some exclusion criteria included prematurity, pre-existing medical conditions, and being critically ill. Other studies excluded infants with viral signs. Intervention: PECARN clinical decision rule Comparison: None Outcome: Diagnostic accuracy of the PECARN rule to identify infants with IBI (bacteremia or bacterial meningitis) Type of Study: A pooled analysis of 5 published prospective cohort studies that was analyzed using meta-analytic methods to assess diagnostic accuracy Guest Authors: Dr. Nathan Kuppermann Dr. Brett Burstein is a paediatric emergency medicine physician at Montreal Children’s Hospital and Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at McGill University. His research focuses on the care of febrile young infants, emphasizing parental preferences, shared decision-making, and family-centered outc
- Apr 11, 202639 min
SGEM#507: Till Everybody Got Delirious – Geriatric Patients in the Emergency Department
Date: April 2, 2026 Reference: Lee et al. GRADE-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Emergency Department Delirium Risk Stratification, Screening, and Brain Imaging in Older Patients With Suspected Delirium. AEM Feb 2026 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Christina Shenvi is a board-certified emergency physician, educator, keynote speaker, coach, and academic leader. She is widely recognized for her work in geriatric emergency medicine, faculty development, and professional identity formation in EM. She brings deep clinical expertise along with thoughtful perspectives on systems-level change and guideline development. Case: An 82-year-old woman with hearing impairment and mild baseline dementia is brought to the emergency department (ED) by her daughter because she became “not herself” over 24 hours. She is more sleepy, intermittently agitated, keeps losing the thread of conversation, and cannot say the months backward. She arrived by ambulance from home after nearly falling twice. Vitals show fever and mild tachycardia. The daughter reports foul-smelling urine and poor oral intake for two days. On examination, there is no head trauma and no focal neurologic deficit. The question in the ED is not simply “Is she confused?” but “Does she have delirium, how do we confirm it efficiently, and does she need a head CT as part of the workup?” Background: Delirium is an acute brain dysfunction: a disturbance in attention and awareness that develops over hours to days, fluctuates, and is accompanied by additional cognitive disturbances such as memory, language, orientation, or perceptual changes. In older adults, it is common, dangerous, and often goes unnoticed. The latest GED Delirium Guidelines indicate that delirium occurs in about 6% to 38% of older ED patients, increases mortality, contributes to functional decline, and imposes a significant burden on health systems. ED-based geriatric screening tools also highlight that delirium is frequently under-recognized by emergency clinicians and that hypoactive delirium is most common, making bedside detection even more challenging. For emergency physicians, delirium matters because it is rarely the final diagnosis. Delirium is usually a clue that something else serious is also wrong. The practical ED task is to identify the syndrome, search for precipitants, and avoid worsening the situation. But one reason the new guideline is so useful is that it is honest about the evidence gap. Prior reviews found no consistent ED-based strategy to prevent incident delirium or to treat prevalent delirium, so this guideline appropriately focuses on the parts of care for which there is sufficient evidence to guide bedside decisions now. It addresses risk stratification, diagnosis, and brain imaging. This delirium guideline is also notable because it was built using the newer GED 2.0 model for subspecialty guideline development [1]. The Geriatric Emergency Department initiative moved beyond the older consensus-based 2014 framework and adopted a transparent GRADE process: multidisciplinary working groups, explicit PICO questions, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, attention to feasibility, equity, and stakeholder values, plus external stakeholder review. This SGEM episode highlights the first EM subspecialty guideline effort to fully adopt GRADE, and this delirium guideline shows that process in action. Clinical Questions: Which older ED adults are at the highest risk on walking in, and who should then be further assessed for delirium? (or CLS addition, should have special prevention measures or expedited treatment or bed placement). Which tools should be used to identify ED delirium? Should acutely confused older ED patients undergo head CT as part of the delirium evaluation? Reference: Lee et al. GRADE-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Emergency Department Delirium Risk Stratification, Screening, and Brain Imaging in Older Patients With Suspected Delirium. AEM Feb 2026 Authors’ Conclusions: “Rigorous ED-based research is needed to strengthen evidence and guide delirium care for older adults in geriatric emergency medicine.” Quality Checklist for a Guideline: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department? Yes An explicit and sensible process was used to identify, select and combine evidence? Yes The quality of the evidence was explicitly assessed using a validated instrument? Yes An explicit and sensible process was used to value the relative importance of different outcomes? Yes The guideline thoughtfully balances desirable and undesirable effects? Yes The guideline accounts for important recent developments? Yes Has the guideline been peer-reviewed and tested? Yes/No Practical, actionable and clinically important recommendations are made? Yes The guideline authors’ conflicts of interest are fully reported, transparent and unlike
- Apr 4, 202637 min
SGEM Xtra: You You You Oughta Know – GED 2.0 Guidelines
Date: March 23, 2026 Dr. Christina Shenvi Guest Skeptic: Dr. Christina Shenvi is a board-certified emergency physician, educator, keynote speaker, coach, and academic leader. She is widely recognized for her work in geriatric emergency medicine, faculty development, and professional identity formation in emergency medicine (EM). She brings deep clinical expertise along with thoughtful perspectives on systems-level change and guideline development. This is another SGEM Xtra episode. Today’s show focuses on how to build high-quality subspecialty clinical practice guidelines, using the Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0 (GED 2.0) as a model. We’ve talked about Geriatric EM a lot on the SGEM over the years. And if we’re serious about evidence-based emergency medicine, we must be serious about geriatric EM. Here are some previous SGEM episodes: SGEM#89: Preventing Falling to Pieces SGEM Xtra: Don’t Bring Me Down – Preventing Older Adult Falls from the ED SGEM#261: Cristal Ball to Assess Older Patients in the ED SGEM#280: This Old Heart of Mine and Troponin Testing SGEM#424: Ooh Ooh I Can’t Wait to Be Admitted to Hospital The original 2014 GED Guidelines were consensus-based and helped establish standards for geriatric emergency departments, including staffing, education, transitions of care, quality improvement, equipment, and protocols. Since then: The evidence base in geriatric EM has expanded. Expectations for clinical practice guideline development have evolved. The GRADE framework has become the international standard for rating the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. GED Guidelines 2.0 represent the first EM subspecialty effort to fully adopt the GRADE methodology and provide a transparent, reproducible model for future EM guideline development. This work involved a multidisciplinary collaboration, including experts affiliated with organizations such as the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM), as well as geriatricians, methodologists, and patient representatives. Started with an open call to the Geriatric Emergency Medicine community via SAEM, ACEP, AGS, EUSEM, and ENA. With funding via JAHF. The GED Guideline 2.0 group is planning 14 Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses, with 6 or 7 Clinical Practice Guidelines. They will all be available on the GEAR 2.0 website Five Questions for Dr. Shenvi I have five key questions to frame our discussion about the GED 2.0 Model for Subspecialty Clinical Practice Guidelines. As a reminder, they are called GUIDElines, not GODlines. This means they are meant to guide our care, not dictate care. 1) Why Update the Original GED Guidelines? The original 2014 GED Guidelines were enormously important because they gave the field its first shared framework for what high-quality emergency care for older adults should look like. But they were developed as consensus-based guidelines at a time when the evidence base in geriatric emergency medicine was much less mature than it is now. Since then, there has been major growth in research, especially through work from GEAR and GEAR 2.0, in areas like delirium, dementia, falls, medication safety, transitions of care, and elder abuse. The update was needed to ensure the guidelines reflected the newer evidence and remained clinically relevant. A second reason is that expectations for guideline development have changed. The paper makes clear that the original guidelines did not include a formal assessment of the quality, quantity, reproducibility, or applicability of the evidence. In today’s environment, clinicians and health systems expect more transparency about how recommendations are made, how strong the evidence is, and how benefits, harms, feasibility, and equity are weighed. GED Guidelines 2.0 was designed to meet those newer standards. A third issue was implementation. The original guidelines had a clear impact, especially through ACEP accreditation, but the paper notes that accredited GEDs still represent a minority of EDs, and many sites have struggled with barriers such as limited resources, competing priorities, and a lack of local champions. So, this update was not just about refreshing content. It was also about making the guidance more usable, transparent, and implementable in both accredited and non-accredited settings. Bottom line, hospitals won’t do things unless there are clear clinical reasons, or financial reasons, or mandates, like CMS measures, which are financial. 2) Why Adopt the GRADE Framework? GRADE stands for: Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. They provide a systematic, transparent framework for rating the quality of evidence and grading the strength of recommendations in healthcare. The group adopted GRADE because they wanted the updated guidelines to be more rigorous, more transparent, and more trustworthy. Ac
- Mar 28, 202632 min
SGEM Xtra: This One Goes to 11 – ATLS 11th Edition
Date: March 26, 2026 Dr. Rob Leeper Guest Skeptic: Dr. Robert Leeper is a trauma surgeon at the London Health Sciences Centre and an ATLS instructor who has helped train generations of physicians in trauma care. He has previously joined SGEM for: SGEM #200 – Bloodletting and Alexander Hamilton SGEM #256 – RLQ Pain and Appendectomy SGEM #345 – Non-operative Management of Appendicitis It’s SGEM Xtra time, where we go beyond a single paper and dive into broader topics that impact our daily practice. Now, some of you may remember that back in 2018, we did a Top 10 list for ATLS 10th Edition. Yes, we cranked it up to 10. ATLS 10th Edition: Top 10 Changes But today… We’re not stopping at 10. Because this SGEM episode goes to 11. If you don’t get that reference, go watch This Is Spinal Tap. It’s a mockumentary about a fictional rock band whose amplifiers go to 11 instead of 10. And when asked why they didn’t just make 10 louder, the guitarist replies: “These go to 11.” And that brings us to ATLS, now officially in its 11th edition. For those who don’t know the history of ATLS, here is the brief back story. ATLS was born out of tragedy. In 1976, orthopedic surgeon Dr. James Styner crashed his small plane in rural Nebraska. His wife died at the scene. He and his children survived but were severely injured. When they arrived at a small hospital, the trauma care they received was, by his account, disorganized and inadequate. Styner later said: “When I can provide better care in the field with limited resources than my children and I received at the primary care facility, there is something wrong with the system.” That moment led to the development of a structured approach to trauma, one that could be taught, replicated, and standardized. The first ATLS course was introduced by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) in 1980. It emphasized something radical at the time: a systematic, prioritized assessment of trauma patients, beginning with Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE). In EM, our alphabet is A-B-CT, send them to the donut of truth. But back to the 1980s, the systematic ABCDE approach wasn’t about memorizing injuries. It was about preventing death from the first thing that kills. Over the decades, ATLS became one of the most widely adopted trauma education programs in the world. It has trained hundreds of thousands of clinicians in over 80 countries. And like any long-running franchise (Star Wars, Mission Impossible, Star Trek and Batman), each new edition tries to improve on the original. So today, instead of a Top 10 list as we did for ATLS 10, we’re going with: The 5 important changes in ATLS 11. Because sometimes less is more. Even if the amplifier goes to 11. Five Changes to the ATLS 11th Edition 1. xABCDE – Hemorrhage Now Comes Before Airway: The most noticeable clinical change in ATLS 11 is the addition of the “x” to ABCDE, making it xABCDE, with the “x” standing for exsanguinating hemorrhage. Massive external bleeding is now formally prioritized before airway management in select patients. While many trauma teams have already internalized the “bleeding kills first” principle, especially after a decade of military-to-civilian trauma translation, ATLS has now codified it. In practical terms, this reinforces early tourniquet use, direct pressure, and hemostatic adjuncts as first-line priorities when appropriate. It’s less of a revolution and more of an official acknowledgment that the trauma world has already turned the volume up on hemorrhage control. But formalizing it in the primary survey does matter, because what gets taught gets practiced. 2. Hemodynamic Optimization Before Intubation: Another subtle but important evolution in the 11th edition is the greater emphasis on resuscitating shock before proceeding with rapid sequence intubation (RSI). ATLS 11 highlights the risk of peri-intubation hypotension and arrest in unstable trauma patients, encouraging clinicians to correct hemodynamics before pushing paralytics. This aligns with growing emergency medicine literature around the dangers of precipitous airway management in the shocked patient. It’s a welcome shift toward physiologic thinking rather than purely procedural thinking. In other words, it reminds us that the airway isn’t just anatomy, it’s physiology. 3. Major Structural Reorganization and Systems Focus: The changes to ATLS 11 aren’t just clinical. This edition reorganizes the manual into three major sections: resuscitation, trauma systems/context, and specific injury patterns. More notably, it introduces full chapters on Trauma Systems, Injury Prevention, Trauma-Informed Care, and Communicating Serious News. This reflects a broader view of trauma care that extends beyond the primary survey. ATLS is no longer just about what happens in the first 15 minutes. It is also about the system in which those 15 minutes occur. For instructors, this may feel
- Mar 21, 202625 min
SGEM#506: Aww I’m Itchy…and I need a Second Generation Antihistamine
Reference: Wong KH, et al. Improving Use of Oral Antihistamines in a Children’s Hospital. Pediatrics. Feb 2026; Date: March 15, 2026 Dr. Stephanie Kubala Guest Skeptic: Dr. Stephanie Kubala is an attending physician in the Division of Allergy and Immunology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is double board-certified in both pediatrics and allergy and immunology. Case: A 5-year-old girl is brought in by her parents for an itchy rash. Her symptoms started last night. The parent reports an itchy, raised red rash on her trunk and extremities. She has not had any fever. She does not have any difficulty breathing, wheezing, vomiting, or diarrhea. On your exam, you note hives on her body but no lip or tongue swelling. Her lungs are clear to auscultation. She intermittently scratches at the rash. Her parents tell you, “We gave her a dose of diphenhydramine last night, and it may have helped a little, but it seems to have worn off. Can you help?” Background: In a lot of emergency departments, “hives = diphenhydramine” is practically muscle memory. It’s familiar, it’s been around forever, and families often expect it because it’s what they already have at home. As with many medical interventions, we must weigh potential harms against potential benefits. The problem is that diphenhydramine and other first-generation antihistamines like hydroxyzine come with a bunch of potential side effects, such as sedation, anticholinergic side effects, and unpredictable behavior changes in some kids. It doesn’t always last very long, which can lead to repeat dosing and frustrated families when symptoms come back a few hours later. On the other hand, second-generation antihistamines like cetirizine target the same H1 receptor for itch and urticaria but tend to be longer-acting and better tolerated, which is why many guidelines and expert groups prefer them for routine allergic symptoms. And there’s a bigger safety angle here, too: first-generation agents show up in dosing errors and misuse/overdose cases. The real issue isn’t whether second-generation antihistamines like cetirizine work. They do. We need to start asking why our systems still nudge clinicians toward the older first-generation antihistamines as a default. The issue is well-suited to a quality improvement (QI) study. Before we dive into the details of the study itself, let’s talk about some basics around QI. QI helps close the gap between best practice and day-to-day care. It starts with a clear, measurable aim (what you want to improve, by how much, by when). This is followed by a simple measurement plan: an outcome measure (the main result you’re trying to change), process measures (the steps that should drive that result), and balancing measures (what might worsen unintentionally). Teams then map the current workflow, identify barriers, and build a key driver diagram that links the aim to the handful of system levers most likely to move the needle. The work is tested and refined using Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycles. [2] These are iterative rather than a single big rollout. Data is tracked over time with run/control charts to show whether changes are real and sustained. Clinical Question: Can a bundled QI approach meaningfully reduce first generation antihistamine use and increase cetirizine use among pediatric patients receiving oral antihistamines in the ED and inpatient settings? Reference: Wong KH, et al. Improving Use of Oral Antihistamines in a Children’s Hospital. Pediatrics. Feb 2026; Population: Patients 6 months to 21 years in the pediatric ED and inpatient units at a tertiary academic children’s hospital Excluded: Patients in NICU, PICU, or hematology-oncology units Intervention: There were 3 main drivers: education/awareness, cetirizine availability, and standardization through clinical pathways. Comparison: Pre-intervention baseline prescribing practices Outcome: Primary Outcomes: There are two primary outcomes: The proportion receiving oral FGA and the proportion receiving cetirizine Secondary Outcomes: PED revisits within 48 hours, median LOS, clinicians’ knowledge, frequency of clinical pathway use and monthly antihistamine cost. Type of Study: Quality improvement initiative Authors’ Conclusions: “Using the Model for Improvement, we reduced FGA use and increased cetirizine use in the PED and inpatient setting.” Quality Checklist for Ql Study (adapted from QI-MQCS): Do they clearly state the problem and why it mattered? Yes Do they explain why the intervention should improve the outcome? Yes Are the specific changes described in enough detail that another site could reproduce them? Unsure Do they describe the setting the intervention took place (type of hospital/clinic, size, population)? Yes Do they describe the approach to designing and introducing the program? Yes Is the evaluation approach explicit? Yes Do they d
- Mar 14, 202636 min
SGEM#505: Close Enough for (ARF) Acute Respiratory Failure (HFNO vs NIV)
Date: March 11, 2026 Reference: RENOVATE Investigators and the BRICNet Authors; High-Flow Nasal Oxygen vs Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: The RENOVATE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA March 2025 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Rory Spiegel is an emergency medicine and critical care physician known for his work in evidence-based medicine and critical care. He is widely recognized for translating emerging research into practical bedside insights through lectures, writing, and digital medical education. His work focuses on resuscitation science, airway management, and the critical appraisal of medical literature. I’m in Maui at the Centre for Continuing Medical Education Year in Review Course. CCME has been doing courses for almost 40 years. The courses take place at amazing locations in the US, including Maui, Hilton Head, Key West, and NYC. CCME recruits four outstanding educators to review ~260 articles from the past year. It’s a unique course because there are no PowerPoint slides to get in the way of the attendees and the speakers. Two faculty members summarize a few articles on a topic in ½ hour with direct interaction with the speakers. You come to this course…you are up to date on the latest EM literature. Case: A 64-year-old woman with a history of COPD (GOLD stage III) and hypertension presents to the emergency department (ED) with worsening shortness of breath over the past 24 hours. She reports increased sputum production and wheezing. On arrival, she is tachypneic and speaking in short phrases. Her vital signs are heart rate 104 beats per minute, blood pressure 148/86 mm Hg, respiratory rate 30 breaths per minute, and SpO₂ 88% on 4 L nasal cannula. She is using accessory muscles and has diffuse expiratory wheezes on auscultation. An arterial blood gas reveals pH 7.29, PaCO₂ 58 mm Hg, and PaO₂ 62 mm Hg. Chest X-ray shows hyperinflation without focal consolidation. Background: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is one of the most common serious respiratory problems managed in emergency medicine and critical care. For decades, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been a central part of therapy for selected patients. This is particularly true for those with COPD exacerbations and acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. By delivering positive pressure, NIV reduces the work of breathing, improves oxygenation and ventilation. This intervention has been shown to reduce intubation rates and mortality in specific populations. However, NIV can be poorly tolerated, requires a tight mask seal and monitoring, and is resource-intensive [1-3]. These downsides can become more problematic in disease states that are not readily reversible over the first few hours. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has emerged over the past decade as an attractive potential alternative. By delivering heated, humidified oxygen at high flow rates, HFNO improves oxygenation, improves ventilator efficiency by reducing dead space, and is often better tolerated than mask-based ventilation. Its physiologic appeal and ease of use have led to widespread adoption, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet enthusiasm has at times outpaced evidence, and important clinical questions remain: Is HFNO equivalent/non-inferior to NIV in preventing intubation or death? How does it perform across different types of respiratory failure? And when should clinicians choose one over the other? Clinical Question: Is HFNO noninferior to NIV regarding the rates of endotracheal intubation or death at 7 days across five distinct patient groups with ARF? Reference: RENOVATE Investigators and the BRICNet Authors; High-Flow Nasal Oxygen vs Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: The RENOVATE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA March 2025 Population: Hospitalized adults with ARF (hypoxemia plus respiratory effort or tachypnea) classified into 5 groups: Nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemia Immunocompromised with hypoxemia COPD exacerbation with respiratory acidosis Acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) Hypoxemic COVID-19 Exclusions: The main exclusion criteria were if there was an urgent need for endotracheal intubation, hemodynamic instability or contraindications to NIV. Intervention: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) delivered continuously, titrated toward 60 L/min. Comparison: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) delivered through a face mask. Outcome: Primary Outcome: Endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days. Secondary Outcomes: 28-day and 90-day mortality, mechanical ventilation-free days, and ICU-free days. Type of Study: Multicenter, adaptive, noninferiority randomized clinical trial using a Bayesian hierarchical model with dynamic borrowing across patient groups. Authors’ Conclusions: “Compared with NIV, HFNO met prespecified criteria for noninferiority for the primary outcome of endotracheal intubation or death within 7 day
Get The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine summaries in your inbox
Free AI-powered daily recaps. Key takeaways, quotes, and mentions — in a 5-minute read.
Get Free Summaries →Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
You Might Also Like
Listeners also like.
The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine
Dr. Ken Milne
Emergency Medicine Cases
Dr. Anton Helman
Always On EM - Mayo Clinic Emergency Medicine
Alex Finch; Venk Bellamkonda
emDOCs.net Emergency Medicine (EM) Podcast
emDOCs.net EM Crew
Loud & Clear: EMS Guiding Principles - Advanced Continuing Education for Paramedics, EMTs & Prehospital Care Providers
Ross Orpet, Paramedic turned EMS Physician
Emergency Medical Minute
Emergency Medical Minute
Ten Minute Medic
Dr. Bill Young, NRP, Ed. D.
Alert Medic 1
Alert Medic 1
Core EM - Emergency Medicine Podcast
Core EM
Core IM | Internal Medicine Podcast
Core IM Team
Last Week in Medicine
Stephen Jenkins, MD, Austin Rupp, MD
The Human Doctor
Dr. Kimberly Manning and Dr. Ashley McMullen
About The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine
Meet ’em, greet ’em, treat ’em and street ’em
Customized Recaps
AI-powered recaps with compact key takeaways, quotes, and insights.
Straight to Your Inbox
Get key takeaways from The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine in a 5-minute read.
Save Hours Every Week
Stay current on your favorite podcasts without falling behind.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Podzilla's The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine daily summary?
It's a free AI-powered email that summarizes new episodes of The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine as soon as they're published. You get the key takeaways, notable quotes, and links & mentions — all in a quick read.
How does the The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine podcast summary work?
When a new episode drops, our AI transcribes and analyzes it, then generates a personalized summary tailored to your interests and profession. It's delivered to your inbox every morning.
Is this an official The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine product?
No. Podzilla is an independent service that summarizes publicly available podcast content. We're not affiliated with or endorsed by Dr. Ken Milne.
Can I get summaries of other podcasts too?
Absolutely! The free plan covers up to 3 podcasts. Upgrade to Pro for 15, or Premium for 50. Browse our full catalog at /podcasts.
How often does The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine release new episodes?
The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine publishes weekly. Our AI generates a summary within hours of each new episode.
What topics does The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine cover?
The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine covers topics including Education, Medicine, Fitness, Health & Fitness. Our AI identifies the specific themes in each episode and highlights what matters most to you.
Start getting The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine summaries tomorrow morning.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.