Join Section

Emergency Medical Informatics Section Newsletter - December 2009, Vol 15, #1



circle_arrow  The Chair’s Letter  
circle_arrow  Section officers for 2009-2010 
circle_arrow  Editor’s Note 
circle_arrow  2009 EMI Annual Meeting Minutes  
circle_arrow  2009 EMI Annual Report  
circle_arrow  QIPS TIPS 3. Mistake Proofing 
circle_arrow  ED Information Systems: Promise and Reality for Safety and Quality 
circle_arrow  Update from the Board Liaison to the Sections Task Force 
circle_arrow  2009-10 Section Grant Program 

Newsletter Index 



The Chair’s Letter 

James C. McClay, MD, FACEP  

1209McClay For years, members of the section have beat the drum demanding better information systems that are better deployed. Now we have the opportunity. With the passage of recovery Act (ARRA) informatics has become central to Federal policy for accomplishing the twin goals of improving quality and reducing costs in healthcare. This is an exciting endorsement of concepts we’ve all been discussing, researching, teaching, and implementing. Of course, now we’re expected to implement our ideas to meet these requirements "right now".   

The central organizing principle for the HITECH provisions of the ARRA is wider, even universal, deployment of health information systems that are used in a meaningful way. While all the definitions aren't finalized, meeting the Meaningful Use criteria requires implementation of certified systems in support of CPOE and ePrescribing with clinical decision support; health information exchange; and making sure our patients can take their records with them to share as they see fit. These aren’t new ideas to the section membership however; the HITECH provisions provide a lot of incentive to increase our level of activity.




Section accomplishments in the past year 


The section members had a busy last year. Todd Rothenhaus lead a task force to produce a white paper on the implementation of EDIS was approved by the board. Ted Melnick obtained a section grant to study how to implement ACEP clinical policies in information systems; Members participated in HL7 clinical standards development, IHE interoperability implementations, and with the CCHIT certification process.  

Over 30 emergency physicians completed this year’s ACEP-AMIA10x10 Informatics Transition Course and met in Boston for a day of discussion.


In addition to the ED Informatics Fellowship at Mount Sinai in New York the University of Arizona and The University of Nebraska Medical Center announced Emergency Medicine Fellowships in Informatics to prepare ED physicians for subspecialty certification in clinical informatics. 

Opportunities for next year 


This next year will see even more activity around meaningful use, HIT certification, development of information standards and providing education to expand the informatics workforce.  We will need to determine how to use the expertise in the section and the college to support this activity to provide better care for our patients.


The Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology (ONC) responded to the ARRA meaningful use requirements by announcing funding for curriculum development and delivery to provide various levels of certification for a HIT workforce. Section members anticipated this need by developing the Emergency Medicine Specific Informatics 10x10 transition course. There is now an opportunity to formalize that curriculum and offer certification to the ED workforce in support of meaningful use of HIT. We will be asking section members to contribute where possible so we can continue to expand educational offerings to ACEP members.


One of the tenants of meaningful use is the free interchange of patient's health information. Systems for Health Information Exchange (HIE) are being funded in every state. Emergency Medicine will benefit greatly from access to patient information but also will be responsible for sharing ED data. There are great opportunities for the development of processes and policies in support of HIE but also in studying the impact on care quality and safety.


A fundamental requirement for sharing of health information or Health Information Exchange (HIE) is standardization of data, data structures, communications, and user interface design. Members of the section have contributed greatly to the basics of this standardization by supporting the HL7 Standards Development Organization, the Certification Commission (CCHIT) and the emergency department information system functional profile and Data Elements for Emergency Department Systems (DEEDS). We have ongoing need for emergency physicians to be involved in this important work.  ACEP has generously offered support to members that will commit to attend these meetings when possible. Please contact Angela Franklin for more information.


Five years from now this flurry of activity to meet meaningful use criteria will be over. We will be using CPOE systems, patients data will move around through HIE, government oversight of quality and utilization will come closer to real time and there will continue to be more extensive reporting requirements. Those institutions that have not been able to meet the requirements will see a reduction in revenue (penalties) and perhaps a migration of patients and support to their rivals. No one is predicting a decrease in the number of emergency patients. Since no one is predicting a decrease in the number of emergency patients, we need to share our knowledge and accomplish our goals for emergency informatics.  




Back to Top 

Section officers for 2009-2010


Chair James C. McClay, MD, FACEP
Immediate Past Chair Vernon D. Smith, MD
Secretary/Newsletter Editor Jeffrey A. Nielson, MD, MS 
Councillor Randall B. Case, MD, MBA, MSE, FACEP
Alternate Councillor R. Carter Clements, MD
Board Liaison Michael J. Gerardi, MD, FACEP
Staff Liaison Angela Franklin, Esq.





Back to Top 

Editor’s Note

Jeffrey A. Nielson, MD, MS 

1209Nielson Time is flying and there is so much going on in IT operations.   We've put together a newsletter that we think will interest you.  The annual section report shows the wide variety of activities going on in EM informatics right now.  Shari Welch's short article on medication safety has some important parallels to informatics.  David Meyers has a nice article on safety and quality in informatics that reviews some of the concepts we should consider when bringing IT, safe patient care, and efficiency together. 

We are still waiting for a the final word on how "Meaningful Use" is going to be defined and how Emergency Medicine is going to be included, when that happens we will be notifying via the email list. (  

In the next newsletter, we look forward to short updates from some of the vendors as well as discussion of the final meaningful use definitions. 



Back to Top 

2009 EMI Annual Meeting Minutes


Section officers participating: James C. McClay, MD, FACEP; Secretary/Newsletter Editor Jeffrey A. Nielson, MD, MS; Councillor Randall B. Case, MD, MBA, MSE, FACEP and Alternate Councillor R. Carter Clements, MD. Others attending the meeting included: Michael J. Gerardi, MD, FACEP, ACEP Board Liaison, staff liaison Angela Franklin, Esq., and Section members and guests totaling approximately 75 persons. 


  • Chair’s Report
  • Councillors Report
  • ACEP/AMIA 10x10 Update
  • EMI Section Grant: ACEP clinical policies and clinical decision support
  • A CIOs Perspective on the ED and EDIS
  • Considerations re an ACEP Registry
  • John Halamaka’s HIT Update to ACEP
  • PICIS Presentation: "Are You a Meaningful User?"


Major Points Discussed 

Dr. McClay provided an update regarding the state of the section, reporting that membership stands at approximately 300; the Section received a section grant award and produced a newsletter over the year.  

Dr. Randy Case delivered the Councilor’s report, noting that issues taken up at Council included end of life, futile care, and seatbelts on buses, naturapathy, and ED Boarding times as well as the College elections. Dr. Case reported that the Informatics Section’s EDIS White Paper was represented at Council at the Reference Committee and is now available on the EMI Website.  The Task Force on Value Based Emergency Care White Paper presentation was a key discussion item as well, and the registry recommendations were of particular interest to the Section.  

Dr. Nielson updated the group on the ACEP/AMIA 10x10 Informatics Course, which was a success with over 35 attendees in this second year of the program. Over 50 CME hours were available for those completing the course this year; the course is planned again for next year. 

Dr. Melnick discussed work on an 18-month ACEP Section Grant to study the feasibility of incorporating ACEP clinical policies guidelines into clinical decision support systems (CDS).  Informed by a survey, a document is now in the final phases of revision and may be presented to the ACEP Board for discussion before the end of the year regarding implementation of clinical policies into CDS. Future work will be recommended regarding bringing IT and clinical policies together. That is, work on a stronger tie-in between guideline development and the potential for guideline implementation using CDS. 

Dr. Rothenhaus presented a CIOs perspective on the ED and EDIS, covering the promise of HIT; the U.S. national HIT strategy, the state of IT adoption; strategic directions, and ubiquitous information systems.   

Drs. Keaton and Gerardi discussed the Value Based Emergency Care Task Force efforts, and how the white paper elucidated that the way physicians are paid will be changing rapidly. The white paper specifically identifies a need to consider development of an ACEP registry, and identified 6 compelling uses for a registry:  

  1. Reporting data to regulatory agencies and insurers/PQRI reporting and credentialing.
  2. Facilitating Maintenance of Certification/partnering with ABEM
  3. Working with our academic emergency departments to identify areas where additional research, particularly in comparative effectiveness is needed.
  4. Demonstrating the discrete value provided by emergency care within the health care delivery system
  5. Identification and development of high-efficiency emergency care practice patterns, and
  6. Reduction in the unnecessary variations in and costs of emergency care. 

Significant discussion was generated by these topics, and as time became very short, upon concluding the business meeting, Dr. McClay noted that Dr. Halamka’s video message to the Section would be posted on the Section website for all members to view.



Back to Top 

2009 EMI Annual Report

Officers for 2008-2009:   


Chair Vernon D. Smith, MD
Immediate Past Chair Craig F. Feied, MD FACEP FAAEM FACPh
Secretary/Newsletter Editor L. Albert Villarin, MD FACEP
Councillor Randall B. Case, MD MBA MSE FACEP
Alternate Councilor R. Carter Clements, MD
Board Liaison Brian Keaton, MD, FACEP
Staff Liaison Angela Franklin, Esq.


Officers for 2009-2010:  


Chair James C. McClay, MD, FACEP
Immediate Past Chair Vernon D. Smith, MD
Secretary/Newsletter Editor Jeffrey A. Nielson, MD, MS
Councillor Randall B. Case, MD MBA MSE FACEP
Alternate Councilor R. Carter Clements, MD
Board Liaison Michael J. Gerardi, MD, FACEP
Staff Liaison Angela Franklin, Esq.


A newsletter was produced and posted online to section members in December 2008. 

2009 Scientific Assembly Meeting Summary 

Guest speakers for the Annual Meeting included Dr. Rothenhaus, discussing a CIOs perspective on the ED and EDIS; Dr. Halamaka (by video) updating the Section on current HIT events in Washington, DC, and Drs. Crockett, Zimmer and Meehan of PICIS, discussing the meaningful use of health IT from the emergency medicine perspective. 

Revised operational guidelines for the Section were approved by the ACEP Board of Directors in February 2009.  

The Section received an ACEP Section Grant to pursue a "Feasibility Study of Implementing ACEP Clinical Policies into a Computerized Clinical Decision Support System".  The project was led by Dr. Ted Melnick, and was initiated to determine the best methods to create CDSSs for the five most recent ACEP Clinical Policies as they are currently written. The objectives of this project were to: 

  1. To assess the feasibility of translating the five most recent ACEP Clinical Policies into a CDSS.
  2. To develop a set of rules that could be embedded into existing information systems.
  3. To provide the ACEP Clinical Policies Committee with expert suggestions and feedback to improve the translation of clinical policies into CDSSs and their integration into existing EM information systems in the form of a toolkit for this process, and
  4. To disseminate the results of this project by preparing a manuscript for Annals of Emergency Medicine and a brief report for all ACEP members. 

2009-2010 Activities as Related to Section Objectives: 

The Section plans to continue to update the EMI Section Website to make it more interactive; continue to explore new ways to provide information to Section members regarding EDIS Systems, products; resume participation in the annual Emergency Department Information Systems Symposium, hosted by Pennsylvania ACEP, and take the ACEP/AMIA 10x10 course into a third year. 



Back to Top 

QIPS TIPS 3.  Mistake Proofing

Shari Welch, MD, FACEP 

Shari Welch The emergency department is the site for more and varying treatments, processes and procedures than any other real estate in your healthcare institution.  Unfortunately the emergency department is also the most frequent location for death and disability related to inefficient care and a frequent site of adverse events in medicine, according to the Joint Commission. The ability to maintain quality control and patient safety for this vast myriad of activities is increasingly an unachievable goal.  As other industries have appreciated, we need to design our work environment to prevent errors, to recognize and alert the team when an error has occurred and to reduce the effects of user errors. This is a monumental task, and one that deserves our effort. 

1209Mistake Proofing Mistake proofing is the use of process or design features to prevent errors or prevent the negative impact of those errors.  Mistake proofing is also known as poka-yoke (pronounced poka-yokay), Japanese slang for "avoiding inadvertent errors".  Nowhere has this concept been built out and systematized better than at Toyota under the mistake-proofing guru, Shigeo Shingo (Shingo 2).  Mistake proofing was formalized by Japanese manufacturers in the 1960’s and translated into English in the 1980’s.  But mistake proofing is older than that.  The Otis elevator brake which stopped the elevator between floors when a cable broke, was introduced in the 1850’s. In that example the elevator cable could still sever or disconnect, but the Otis brake allowed the elevator operator to mitigate the damage by stopping the elevator mid-floor.  Another example of mistake proofing involves the everyday filing cabinet.  The early cabinets would tip over if more than one filing cabinet drawer filled with heavy files, was open at a time.  The mistake proof design has one open drawer lock the others closed to prevent tipping.  

Another early example of mistake proofing can be seen in the design of this early medicine bottle.  From the 19th century, this bottle was deliberately designed with tactile spikes.  In this way the doctor, nurse or patient was alerted to the fact that a dangerous compound was inside. Human creativity and ingenuity have been used in the environment to prevent or mitigate the mistakes that humans will make.  It is high time such efforts took off in our work environment.  

How about a Pyxis® or medication dispensation system that alarms if we try to open the drawer of a medication that the patient is allergic to? 



Back to Top 

ED Information Systems: Promise and Reality for Safety and Quality

David Meyers, MD, FACEP 

Dr. David Meyers With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) now signed into law by President Obama, significant efforts by the government are under way to change the way medicine is practiced in the US by encouraging, or forcing, depending on your point of view, the adoption of electronic health records into everyday clinical practice.  There are basically two putative benefits related to this radical restructuring of health care practice: vast improvements in the efficiency and quality of health care and drastic reductions in the costs of health care.  The Act authorizes approximately $19 billion to promote Health Information Technology (HIT) and electronic health records (EHRs) to achieve these improvements, and the Obama administration has targeted 2014 as the year when every American will have the benefit of an EHR.  Significant financial incentives and penalties for physicians and hospitals as well as funding for an infrastructure to support these efforts are embodied in the law to foster successful adoption. 

Dr. David Blumenthal, the newly named National Coordinator for HIT, wrote in a recent New England Journal of Medicine article ( that in spite of these facilitating steps, significant obstacles must be overcome.  Among them are: 1) the failure of the current process through CCHIT – the quasi-governmental body which certifies that a particular EHR product meets minimal standards for ease-of-use and is designed to achieve the quality and efficiency goals in the law; and 2) getting providers to optimize their use of the clinical decision supports embedded in the EHRs to achieve better quality. Financial incentives, ie, Pay for Performance for hospitals and providers, coupled with penalties for non-adoption or non-performance are viewed as the tools to improve physicians’ practices with respect to the quality of care. 

With these points in mind, let’s look at some issues in the use of Emergency Department Information Systems (EDIS).  For purposes of this discussion, the term EDIS broadly includes a number of elements, among them: patient tracking, physician (EMR=Electronic Medical Record) and nurse documentation, computerized physician order entry (CPOE), discharge instructions, prescription writing and electronic transmission, operations reporting, clinical decision support, quality improvement reporting and analysis, results reporting and interfaces with the hospital’s IT platform for access to old records, discharge summaries, diagnostic study reports, etc.  These features may or may not be available and/or used in any given product or location. 

As more and more hospitals consider or implement automation for clinicians in order to tap into their benefits and comply with the law, EDs are tempting sites to initiate HIT efforts. The ED appears to be a relatively closed setting with relatively small numbers of staff to convince of the benefits and to train.  Many of us are comfortable with technology and PCs.  By the nature of our work, we are extremely adaptable.  Furthermore, it may be easier to impose change on ED physician staff, in settings where practice management groups, usually outside vendors, can be tasked with getting physicians to use the tools effectively or risk financial penalties or loss of a contract. 

Many of the issues surrounding the philosophical and practical questions of EDISs were addressed in a Consensus Development Conference sponsored by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine in 2004.  The proceedings of that conference were published in the Society’s journal late that year (Handler JA, Adams JG, Feied CF, Gillam M, Vozenilek J, Barthell EN, et al. Emergency medicine information technology consensus conference: executive summary. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 2004 Nov; 11(11):1112-3.).  An ACEP Informatics "White Paper" published in April 2009 (Link: made the statement that the report of the conference remains "one of the most definitive works on ED Information Systems, and its content as relevant today as five years ago".  Further, from that report, "Implementation of commercial EHR systems have been more sobering, with some studies reporting increased or new types of errors, little benefit from decision support, and even increased mortality. It has become clear that success in any health IT project is predicated on careful system design, deliberate implementation, and attention to clinician needs." 

The ACEP report is an excellent primer on the background, planning, implementation and evaluation of EDISs and should be required reading for planners at any organization contemplating a new or re-evaluating an existing EDIS and EMR.  It is particularly thorough in reviewing strengths, weaknesses and desirable features of these systems.  

Two great enemies of timely, safe, effective and high quality care are delays in evaluating patients and human factors which lead to wrong diagnoses.  A presumed goal of HIT and EDISs ought to be the reduction of the adverse impact of these factors.  Yet, real world experience reveals that EDIS and EMRs have not had the intended effects in many situations.  

To the extent that efficient patient throughput is a driver of reducing delays in patient care, it is apparent that the transition to EMRs from a template-based paper record for physicians often leads to reduced physician productivity (personal communication – Dick Klaas - data from over 20 EMR/EDIS implementations with at least 10 vendors’ products).  On the other hand, there is anecdotal information about sites where physician charts are produced using hand-written free text and/or dictation/transcription, where productivity has increased when an EMR Is implemented.  So, in determining whether productivity changes with an EMR, it seems to depend on the charting method one is moving FROM.  My experience is with transition from the template system (T-System) paper chart.

Relative Value Units (RVU) per patient increase with many if not most all of the EMR products, probably because of the relative ease of documenting more information and the prompts and reminders that are part and parcel of many EMRs.  While rates of physician work (RVUs per patient or per hour) often do increase when an EMR is used, suggesting greater productivity, the number of patients per hour (pph) does not and in many cases actually goes down.  Patients-per-hour, not the RVU measure, is the relevant metric which impacts patient throughput and waiting times to see a physician.  It often correlates (inversely) with patients who leave without a medical screening exam, deterioration of patient condition in the waiting room and patient satisfaction.  In Klaas’s data, these reductions in pph after EMR implementation in most cases have not returned to the pre-implementation baselines even more than a year later and the impact on delays has persisted.  Many organizations are now looking at how to maintain patient throughput, but more quickly, cheap fixes are likely to be needed.  Among the most frequent options being considered are scribes to relieve the physician of the documentation burden (and perform "go-fer" functions) as well as added physician or physician-extender staffing. 

Another issue which is increasingly being noted is the reduction in face-to-face verbal communication between physicians and nurses in the course of patient care.  The stereotypical scenario is the doctor and nurse both engrossed in documenting on their respective terminals away from the bedside while the patient deteriorates amid a cacophony of alarms, ignored because they have been tuned out as being so much background noise rarely depicting a true patient emergency.  

The communication problem seems to be one which could be overcome by EMR design.  Unfortunately, a number of EMR products in wide use do not have easy access by the various care-givers to each others’ notes, further sabotaging communication. Where human performance depends on ease of use and design for efficiency, it is remarkable that so little attention seems to have been paid to these factors in product design, even (and perhaps especially) in some of the enterprise-wide products where a single vendor has developed all modules of the system.  An organization with a helpful perspective on software design that considers human behavior is "Human factors International" (; their newsletter is full of ideas for software designers to consider in overcoming human l imitations. 

So the benefits of EDIS’ are at best not without significant unintended and adverse effects.  It has been often said that automating bad processes, just like building a new ED, does not solve the problems of the bad processes; it merely installs them in the new setting, "automated" or geographic.  The proof of this truth is visible in many health care organizations. 

The potential for electronic systems to enhance clinician performance seems very high, but as in so many other aspects of life, translating that potential into the real world is a big challenge.  In future issues of our newsletter, I will review some of the other putative benefits related to safety and quality attendant to the use of EMRs and EDISs, including prompts and reminders, medication safety features around orders and prescription writing, use of macros and others.  Meanwhile, I welcome your thoughts and comments. 



Back to Top 

Update from the Board Liaison to the Sections Task Force

Andy Bern, MD, FACEP 

Congratulations to all sections on their annual meetings during Scientific Assembly in Boston. This Scientific Assembly was a huge success having the most registrants of any Scientific Assembly to date.

BernAndyIn this past year, the Sections Task Force, chaired by Dr. Kelly Gray-Eurom and me, as the board liaison, oversaw the awarding of section grants and section awards in the categories of increased membership, newsletter excellence, service the college, and service to sections. In the next few weeks, we hope to receive the annual reports of each section on the activities for this past year. This report can be used in developing the self -nominating forms for service to college and service to section awards. It is also an historical record of the accomplishments of your section for the year that would be helpful for new section leaders and section members. This report is important to send out through the section e-list or to be printed in the first issue of your section’s newsletter.

At this year's Scientific Assembly a meet and greet was held for section leaders. Susan Morris, Bobby Heard, Kelly Gray-Eurom, and I met with section leaders between 8 am-9 am for coffee and doughnuts to share experiences and solutions as to problems facing section leaders.

Council Meeting 

Some section councillors took advantage of the councillor training session and met with the small chapter and section caucus on Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. It is a tradition for section and small chapter councillors to assist each other with training and support during the Council meeting. Sections and small chapter councillors often have the role of councillor for only one year. Clearly, this is a disadvantage in experience when compared to larger chapters where councilors can serve many consecutive terms and truly get to know the system and the individuals. Section councillors and alternate councillors should plan on attending the councillor orientation and these important caucus meetings on Friday afternoon and Sunday morning next year. It is yet another opportunity for section leaders to get together and share common experiences.


Webinar, ACEP Sections: The Power of 100 

This year, for the first time, a webinar was produced to help educate section leaders. The webinar can be accessed by clicking here. Although directed to the section leadership, any section member who in the future wants to become leader or just wants to know more about sections can go to the site.

I encourage each of you to listen to the webinar. Section members who have taken advantage of this resource tell me that it has been very helpful and is well worth the 40 or so minutes of their time to gain a really good understanding of what you can do with the section.

Growth in Section Membership


Your College, under the direction of the Membership Committee and Membership Division staff, has seen the successful growth of membership to more than 27,500 members. There has also been a growth in section membership. One of the reasons for this has been the block payment for residents by residency directors. Often, when this block payment occurs, complementary section selections for the resident are not made. This creates an opportunity for each section to be in contact with these new resident members and invite them to participate in your section. Sections offer many opportunities for residents in leadership development, professional development, and in publishing in the section newsletter.

Size matters- because sections can use 15% of the membership dues generated in the previous year to finance projects. Membership growth equates to more funds for projects. It is also important if you want to influence College direction.

Section Grant Program 

About this time, many sections will begin to think about the section grant program. Documents outlining the grant program and how to apply for a grant are posted on the Section web site. Click here.

Communications and action plans


Now is the time to develop action plans for the section during this activity year. The communications plan details how the section will communicate with its membership through three different communication tools. These tools include the section newsletter, the section e-list, and the section website. Each of these tools should have an editor or project director. Ideas and survey results from the section e-list can be summarized in the section newsletter or website. Resources of a particular section might be carried in the section newsletter so it is always there for the members. Many sections use the annual meeting as an opportunity to define the topics that they will cover in the newsletter over the course of this year. With an average of 10 stories per newsletter, a section would be able to cover 40 different stories over the course of the year.


There are three types of partnerships that I would like to talk about. First, sections can partner with one another when applying for section grants. There have been many examples where two or more sections have worked with one another on grant projects. Second, sections have partnered with chapters in providing lectures as part of the chapter meeting and have become associated with specific meetings. Examples include the Disaster Medicine Section that has a meeting of the section at the Florida Chapter of Emergency Physicians’ disaster conference; the Emergency Medicine Informatics Section also has partnered with the Pennsylvania Chapter in their annual informatics meeting. These partnerships are a win-win for both the section and the chapter. The last partnership is the development of a course program that is so large that the partnership is between the section and college through the education committee that produces a dedicated program. The Pediatric Advanced Educational Program is an example of such a partnership.

The Team 

We want your section to succeed. Happy and engaged members who find value in the community of others who share a similar interest within their practice of emergency medicine determine success. We look forward to each section reaching a goal of four newsletters, participating in the section grant program and in the ability to finance section projects through the 15% of dues allocation. We want to help each section member reach their full potential including professional development by using sections as an alternative path to leadership development. Finally, we would like to see each section member become politically engaged by attending the Leadership and Advocacy Conference in Washington DC this spring, the annual Council meeting next year in Las Vegas, and participating in NEMPAC and EMF. 




Back to Top 

2009-10 Section Grant Program


The Section Grant Application Process has Begun!

The ACEP Board awards up to $25,000 annually
to section grant applicants. 

February 15, 2010 is the deadline for letters of intent.

Click here for applications and information for applying for a Section Grant.

Contact Susan Morris ( or your section liaison with questions.





Back to Top 

This publication is designed to promote communication among emergency physicians of a basic informational nature only. While ACEP provides the support necessary for these newsletters to be produced, the content is provided by volunteers and is in no way an official ACEP communication. ACEP makes no representations as to the content of this newsletter and does not necessarily endorse the specific content or positions contained therein. ACEP does not purport to provide medical, legal, business, or any other professional guidance in this publication. If expert assistance is needed, the services of a competent professional should be sought. ACEP expressly disclaims all liability in respect to the content, positions, or actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this newsletter. 

Click here to
send us feedback