What do we really know about infants who attend Accident and Emergency departments?

AIMS: Accident and Emergency attendances continue to rise. Infants are disproportionately represented. This study examines the clinical reasons infants attend UK Accident and Emergency departments. METHODS: A retrospective review of 6,667 infants aged less than one year attending Accident and Emergency at two district general hospitals in London from 1(st) April 2009 to 30(th) March 2010. All infants had been assigned to a diagnostic category by the medical coding department according to National Health Service (NHS) data guidelines, based on the clinical diagnoses stated in the medical records. The Accident and Emergency case notes of a random subsample of 10% of infants in each of the top five recorded diagnostic categories (n = 535) were reviewed in detail and audited against the standard national NHS data set. RESULTS: The top 5 clinical diagnoses were 'infectious diseases', 'gastrointestinal', 'respiratory', 'unclassifiable' and 'no abnormality detected' (NAD). A third of infants were originally given a diagnosis of unclassifiable (21.5%) or NAD (11.5%). After detailed case-note review, we were able to reduce this to 9.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 9.0, 10.4) and 8.8% (95% CI: 8.1, 9.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the importance of providing a clear clinical diagnosis and coding system for Accident and Emergency attendances and understanding that system fully. This would allow for better informed health service evaluation, planning and research as each of these relies on the interpretation of routine health-care data. Furthermore, the relatively high proportion (10%) of infants attending with no discernible underlying medical abnormality suggests the health needs of a significant proportion of infants attending Accident and Emergency departments may be better addressed by alternative service provision and/or improved education and support to parents.

Clinical features of sarcoid rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: We asked if certain clinical features were useful predictors of sarcoid rhinosinusitis in general populations of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. METHODS: Our patients with sarcoid rhinosinusitis and those from the literature formed the study group. A group of 21 randomly selected patients from The University of Mississippi Medical Center Allergy Clinic with chronic rhinosinusitis composed the control group. RESULTS: Our literature search identified 73 patients with sarcoid rhinosinusitis reported since 1999. Twenty patients met inclusion criteria and were added to 16 of our patients to compose the study group of 36 patients. The majority of the study group was African-American (61%) and female (69%) and had pulmonary sarcoidosis (67%) and other forms of extrapulmonary sarcoidosis in addition to sarcoid rhinosinusitis (86%). The 5 most common upper respiratory signs/symptoms were nasal obstruction (86%), nasal crusting (47%), anosmia (44%), epistaxis (28%), and nasal polyposis (25%). Odds ratios for sarcoid rhinosinusitis were 2.5 for persistent nasal obstruction, 7.7 for epistaxis, 16.0 for anosmia, and 18.8 for nasal crusting. For each symptom, the odds of sarcoid rhinosinusitis increased by 9.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-49.9). Nasal crusting was associated with the coexistence of atrophic rhinosinusitis at nasal endoscopy. Treatment with oral corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive therapy, primarily methotrexate, was frequently required. CONCLUSION: The coexistence of chronic rhinosinusitis and 2 of the signs of nasal crusting, anosmia, or epistaxis are highly specific for sarcoid rhinosinusitis. Even in the absence of an established diagnosis of sarcoidosis, sinonasal biopsy should be considered for diagnosing these patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.