ACMT Toxicology Visual Pearl: Delayed Skin Burn

What type of burn may not develop findings shown until days to weeks after the exposure?
- Chemical
- Electrical
- Radiation
- Thermal
[Image generated via Google Gemini]

What type of burn may not develop findings shown until days to weeks after the exposure?
[Image generated via Google Gemini]

Welcome to the AIR Non-ACS Cardiology Module! After carefully reviewing all relevant posts in the past 12 months from the top 50 sites of the Digital Impact Factor [1], the ALiEM AIR Team is proud to present the highest quality online content related to non-ACS cardiology emergencies in the Emergency Department. 9 blog posts met our standard of online excellence and were approved for residency training by the AIR Series Board. More specifically, we identified 6 AIR and 3 Honorable Mentions. We recommend programs give 5 hours of III credit for this module.
In an effort to truly emphasize the highest quality posts, we have 2 subsets of recommended resources. The AIR stamp of approval is awarded only to posts scoring above a strict scoring cut-off of ≥30 points (out of 35 total), based on our scoring instrument. The other subset is for “Honorable Mention” posts. These posts have been flagged by and agreed upon by AIR Board members as worthwhile, accurate, unbiased, and appropriately referenced despite an average score.
Want asynchronous Individualized Interactive Instruction (III) credit?
Take the AIR quiz at ALiEMU. Free, 1-time login required.
| Site | Article | Author | Date | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMCrit | Supraventricular Tachycardia | Dr. Josh Farkas | January 5, 2025 | AIR |
| EMCrit | Right Ventricular Failure | Dr. Josh Farkas | March 21, 2025 | AIR |
| EMCrit | Valvular Heart Disease | Dr. Josh Farkas | January 27, 2025 | AIR |
| EMCrit | Antiarrhythmics | Dr. Josh Farkas | January 8, 2025 | AIR |
| EM Cases | Acute heart failure risk stratification and disposition | Dr. Anton Helman | August 19, 2025 | AIR |
| EMCrit | SCAPE (sympathetic crashing acute pulmonary edema) | Dr. Josh Farkas | January 30, 2025 | AIR |
| RCEMlearning | Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema | Dr. Victoria Henson | May 30, 2025 | HM |
| EMCrit | Acute Pericarditis | Dr. Josh Farkas | September 20, 2025 | HM |
| EMCrit | Acute Myocarditis and evaluation of newly discovered HFrEF | Dr. Josh Farkas | October 1, 2024 | HM |
(AIR = Approved Instructional Resource; HM = Honorable Mention)
If you have any questions or comments on the AIR series, or this AIR module, please contact us!

What is the spider pictured below?
[Author’s own image]

What toxic gas is created by mixing these two household products?
[Author’s own image]

A 14-year-old Hispanic girl presents to the Emergency Department with her mother for suicidal ideation after a conflict at home. The girl is quiet and cooperative. Her mother, who speaks primarily Spanish, is trying to explain the situation. The nurse assigns an ESI level 2, the same score given to nearly every child who walks through the door with a behavioral health complaint. But does that score accurately capture this patient’s needs?
A new multicenter PECARN study published this week in JAMA Network Open takes a close look at triage accuracy for pediatric behavioral health ED visits. The findings: mistriaging errors are common, and they are not equally distributed [1].
Hoffmann et al. analyzed 78,411 ED visits by children aged 5 to 17 with behavioral health chief concerns across 15 PECARN Registry EDs from 2021 to 2023 [1]. They classified each visit as appropriately triaged, overtriaged, or undertriaged using vital signs, Glasgow Coma Scale, pain scores, emergency medication use, resource utilization, and disposition. Of the 74,564 visits with complete data:
The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) is used in over 90% of US EDs [2]. It sorts patients into 5 acuity levels. Level 1 is for patients needing lifesaving interventions. Level 2 is for high-risk situations, confused patients, or those in severe pain. Levels 3 through 5 are based on anticipated resource needs. In this study, 83.5% of all behavioral health visits were triaged as ESI level 2.
To assess triage accuracy, the authors compared each child’s assigned ESI level against what actually happened during their visit.
Overtriage means a child was assigned a higher acuity score than their clinical course supported. For a child assigned ESI level 2, overtriage was defined as meeting ALL of the following [1]:
In other words, the triage nurse predicted high acuity, but the visit didn’t bear that out.
Undertriage means the opposite: a child was assigned a lower acuity score than their clinical course warranted. For example, a child triaged as ESI level 4 (expected to need 1 resource) who ended up being admitted, needing emergency medications, or using multiple resources. The triage nurse underestimated how sick the child was or how much care they would need.
The most concerning equity finding was in undertriage.
After adjusting for clinical and visit characteristics, undertriage was significantly more likely for Hispanic children (AOR 1.46), non-Hispanic Black children (AOR 1.28), and children whose families preferred Spanish (AOR 1.31), all compared to non-Hispanic White and English-speaking patients [1]. The authors point to implicit clinician bias, systemic racism, and underutilization of professional interpreters as likely contributors.
The safety implications are real. Children whose acuity is underestimated may face longer waits, miss time-sensitive interventions, or leave the ED without being seen despite elevated risk.
More than half of all visits (57%) were overtriaged [1]. These children received a higher acuity triage score than their clinical course supported.
The strongest predictor was age. Children aged 5-9 had over 4-fold higher adjusted odds of overtriage compared to those aged 10-14 (AOR 4.43), possibly because younger children have a limited ability to communicate their symptoms and needs.
To a lesser degree, non-Hispanic Black children also had higher adjusted odds of overtriage compared to non-Hispanic White children (AOR 1.17). The authors cite research on adultification, the tendency to perceive Black youth as older or more threatening than they are, as a potential contributor. This means Black children in this study were more likely to be both undertriaged and overtriaged compared to White children. The errors are not unidirectional. They likely reflect different biases operating at different points in care.

The challenges in lactation are often compounded by outdated beliefs held by clinicians. Most of the medications we administer in the emergency department (ED) do not warrant any interruption in expression or feeding of breastmilk. Most imaging we perform in the ED is safe in the lactating patient and likewise does not need interruption. Let us convince you to trash the phrase, “Pump and Dump” in the ED.
Evidence suggests medication transfer through breast milk is frequently overestimated, with actual infant exposure typically minimal for most medications commonly prescribed in emergency settings [1]. The majority of medications administered in the ED are compatible with continued breastfeeding or pumping without interruption [2]. The practice of “pumping and dumping” is harmful to infants and lactating adults given the many benefits of lactation [3, 4]. It can cause irreparable disruptions in supply, increased parental burden and stress, and is not medically indicated except in very rare circumstances (chemotherapeutics for example) [3, 4]. When uncertainty exists regarding medication safety during lactation, clinicians should consult evidence-based resources such as LactMed or the LactRx app [iphone] to provide informed recommendations. A brief summary table is provided below for quick reference on some common medications.
| Medication Class | Safe in Lactation | Cautions in Lactation |
|---|---|---|
| Analgesia |
|
|
| Sedative Hypnotics |
|
|
| Paralytics |
|
|
| Opioid Use Disorder |
|
|
| Antibiotics |
|
|
| Anti-hypertensives |
|
|
| Antidepressants |
|
|
| Anticonvulsants |
|
|
Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging we typically use in the ED (CT, x-ray) is minimal and there is no need to interrupt nursing/pumping [42].
Iodinated and gadolinium contrast agents are safe and do not require interruption of breastfeeding [43]. Read more in the American College of Radiology 2025 ACR Manual on Contrast Media (start at page 94).
In suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is preferred over V/Q scan in lactating patients due to contrast safety (no breastfeeding interruption required), speed and availability, and high rates of indeterminate V/Q scans requiring subsequent CTPA [43, 44].
Exception: In the rare circumstance where contrast is contraindicated (such as anaphylaxis) and a radioactive tracer is indicated (V/Q scan with Tc-99m MAA), the radioactivity does warrant separation from both patient contact and milk for a period of time determined by the rate of decay of the specific agent [45]. Keep expressed milk stored appropriately until radioactivity has been able to decay then it’s safe to feed [46].

The medication shown in the image is used to treat which type of toxic exposure?
[Image from Saalebaer via Wikimedia Commons]