OBJECTIVE The need for clinical toxicology resources by emergency physicians is unclear and may have implications for future training and resource availability. This study was designed to assess current emergency physician use of available resources. METHODS Prospective evaluation by mail using a 49-item questionnaire. METHODS All 170 emergency physicians in Utah. METHODS None. RESULTS The response rate was 75.3% (128 of 170). Resources "outside their own fund of knowledge" were consulted "occasionally" to "frequently" by 98.3%. They used the following resources "occasionally" to "frequently": poison control center (PCC) (93.7%), toxicology textbook (77.6%), "expert colleague" (34.0%), and "in-house POISINDEX" (23.9%). They often contacted the PCC for toxicity information (93.7%) and management recommendations (87.3%) and for acute, symptomatic overdose cases (88.3%). They "almost never" contacted the PCC for adverse drug reactions (76.6%), pill identification (70.2%), consultation with physician toxicologist (68.1%), asymptomatic exposures (62.9%), chronic toxicity (50.4%), or solely to report the case to the American Association of Poison Control Centers data base (90.2%). Those who had access to in-house POISINDEX often did not consult the PCC (82.6%). Of those who did not have in-house POISINDEX, 42.8% contacted the PCC to access it. Providing access to physician toxicologist consultations was thought to be an important role for the PCC by 86.7%, but only 32% of physicians were using this option. CONCLUSIONS The vast majority of emergency physicians in Utah consult the PCC only for acute, symptomatic overdoses. They view access to physician toxicologist consultation as an important role for the PCC but seldom use it. The availability of in-house POISINDEX decreases the likelihood of PCC consultations from emergency departments. The frequency of emergency physician consultation with the PCC may decrease as POISINDEX becomes available at more hospitals.