ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Most pediatric emergency visits occur in general emergency departments (GED). Our study aims to assess whether medical decision making regarding the management of febrile infants differs in GEDs from pediatric EDs (PED) and deviates from pediatric expert consensus. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review on patients younger than 60 days with fever admitted from 13 GEDs versus 1 PED to a children's hospital over a 3-year period. Adherence to consensus guidelines was measured by frequency of performing critical components of initial management, including blood culture, urine culture, attempted lumbar puncture, and antibiotic administration (<29 days old), or complete blood count and/or C-reactive protein, blood culture, and urine culture (29-60 days old). Additional outcomes included lumbar puncture, collecting urine specimens via catheterization, and timing of antibiotics. RESULTS: A total of 176 patient charts were included. Sixty-four (36%) patients were younger than 29 days, and 112 (64%) were 29 to 60 days old. Eighty-eight (50%) patients were admitted from GEDs.In infants younger than 29 days managed in the GEDs (n = 32), 65.6% (n = 21) of patients underwent all 4 critical items compared with 96.9% (n = 31, P = 0.003) in the PED. In infants 29 to 60 days old managed in GEDs (n = 56), 64.3% (n = 36) patients underwent all 3 critical items compared with 91.1% (n = 51, P < 0.001) in the PED. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study suggests that providers managing young infants with fever in 13 GEDs differ significantly from providers in the PED examined and literature consensus. Inconsistent testing and treatment practices may put young infants at risk for undetected bacterial infection.
Subject(s)
Emergency Service, Hospital , Fever , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Child , Fever/therapy , Hospitalization , Hospitals, Pediatric , Humans , Infant , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Occupation contact dermatitis (CD) is a common inflammatory skin condition impacting every professional industry in the United States. It is associated with significant personal and professional distress, loss of revenue, and decreased productivity. Occupational CD is further subdivided into irritant CD and allergic CD. Frequently, workers may suffer from a combination of both types. Numerous workplace exposures are implicated, but there are several themes across professions, such as CD related to frequent handwashing and wet work. A detailed occupational history, physical examination, and patch testing can help to make the diagnosis. Treatment includes identification of the substance and avoidance, which often is quite challenging.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Irritant , Dermatitis, Occupational , Occupational Exposure , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Irritant/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Humans , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Patch TestsSubject(s)
Anti-Allergic Agents/administration & dosage , Chronic Urticaria/drug therapy , Cyclosporine/administration & dosage , Dermatologic Agents/administration & dosage , Omalizumab/administration & dosage , Adult , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Allergic contact dermatitis is common, resulting in considerable morbidity. Diagnosis is based on a thorough history, physical examination, and patch testing. Several commercially available panels of patch testing are currently used. Allergens are found in a wide variety of daily products, occupational exposures, and foods. The mainstay of treatment is avoidance of the allergen, and databases like Contact Allergen Management Program and Contact Allergen Replacement Database help patients to select products that do not contain allergens to which they are sensitized. Topical corticosteroids can be used to treat exacerbations, but should be avoided in long-term treatment.
