By 11 February 2020 when the WHO named the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes (COVID-19), it was evident that the virus was spreading rapidly outside of China. Although San Francisco did not confirm its first locally transmitted cases until the first week of March, our ED and health system began preparing for a potential COVID-19 surge in late February 2020.In this manuscript, we detail how the above responses were instrumental in the rapid deployment of two military-grade negative-pressure medical tents, named accelerated care units (ACU). We describe engagement of our workforce, logistics of creating new care areas, ensuring safety through personal protective equipment access and conservation, and the adaptive leadership challenges that this process posed.We know of no other comprehensive examples of how EDs have prepared for COVID-19 in the peer-reviewed literature. Many other EDs both in and outside of California have requested access to the details of how we operationalised our ACUs to facilitate their own planning. This demonstrates the urgent need to disseminate this information to our colleagues. Below we describe the process of developing and launching our ACUs as a potential model for other EDs around the country.

Objectives: Microaggressions and implicit bias occur frequently in medicine. No previous study, however, has examined the implicit bias and microaggressions that emergency medicine (EM) providers experience. Our primary objective was to understand how often EM providers experience implicit bias and microaggressions. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the types of microaggressions they experience and whether their own identifying characteristics are risk factors.Methods: A questionnaire was administered to EM providers across the United States. Outcome measures of experiencing or witnessing a microaggression, overt discrimination, or implicit bias were described using frequencies, proportions, and logistic regressions. Where a univariate association between outcome measures and demographic characteristics was found, multivariate regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was performed. Proportional odds logistic regression models were used to evaluate the specific type of microaggressions experienced and if there was an association with demographic variables.Results: A total of 277 medical providers (48% trainees—medical students, residents, and fellows—and 52% attending physicians) completed the survey. A total of 181 (65%) respondents reported experiencing a microaggression. Female (OR = 5.9 [95% CI = 3.1 to 11.2]) and non‐White respondents (OR = 2.4 [95% CI = 1.2 to 4.5]) were more likely to report experiencing any microaggression. Misidentification, the most common form of microaggression, was more common with trainees compared to attending physicians (proportional OR [POR] = 2.6 [95% CI = 1.7 to 4.0]) and non‐White, compared to White, respondents (POR = 2.2 [95% CI = 1.3 to 3.6]). Misidentification as nonclinician staff was associated with gender (POR = 53 [95% CI = 24 to 116]) and 52% of female respondents reported being mistaken for nonclinician staff almost daily. Seventy‐six percent of respondents reported being called a vulgar term by a patient and 21% by a staff member.Conclusions: EM providers, particularly women and non‐Whites, who responded to our survey experienced and witnessed bias and microaggressions, most commonly misidentification, in the ED.

Introduction: It is important for physicians to learn how to provide culturally sensitive care. Cultural humility is defined as a lifelong process with a goal of fixing power imbalances and creating institutional accountability through learning about another’s culture as well as performing self-exploration about one’s own beliefs, identities, and biases. One way to teach cultural humility in medicine is simulation. However, there are no peer-reviewed published studies that examine whether the skin tone or gender of the high-fidelity simulation manikins (HFSM) used by emergency medicine (EM) residency programs reflects the US population nor whether high-fidelity simulation is used to teach cultural humility. We aimed to address that gap in the literature. Our primary objective was to evaluate what proportion of EM residency programs use HFS to teach cultural humility. Our secondary objective was to evaluate whether the skin tone and gender breakdown of the EM residency program HFSM is representative of the US population.Methods: We conducted a simple random sample of 80 EM residency programs to characterize HFSM and cultural humility training. Selected programs were emailed a questionnaire. Key outcomes included HFSM skin tone and gender and whether cultural humility was taught via HFSM. We calculated point and interval estimates for the proportion of dark-, medium-, and light-toned skin and the proportion of female and male manikins. Confidence intervals were employed to test the null hypothesis that dark/medium/light skin tone was 20/20/60 and that the female/male ratio was 50/50. Both ratios were extrapolated from the US Census data.Results: Our response rate was 74% (59/80). Fifty-five of 59 EM residency programs that had manikins (0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–0.99) reported data on a total of 348 manikins. Thirty-nine of the 55 programs with manikins reported using HFS to teach cultural humility (0.71, 95% CI 0.60–0.82). Proportions of light-, medium-, and dark-toned manikins were 0.52 (0.43–0.62), 0.38 (0.29–0.47), and 0.10 (0.07–0.14), respectively. Proportions of male and female HFSM were 0.69 (0.64–0.76) and 0.31 (0.24–0.36), respectively. The null hypotheses that skin tone follows a 60/20/20 split and gender follows a 50/50 split were rejected, as not all confidence intervals contained these hypothesized values.Conclusion: While most EM residency programs surveyed use high-fidelity simulation to teach cultural humility, the manikins do not reflect either the skin tone or gender of the US population. [West J Emerg Med. 2023;24(4)1–7.]