Red in the face: Approach to diagnosis of red rashes on the face.

BACKGROUND: A red rash on the face in an adult patient is a common presentation to general practice in Australia. Rashes on the face significantly affect quality of life because this is a cosmetically sensitive site. Ascertaining the correct diagnosis is therefore of utmost importance so that appropriate treatment can be initiated. OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the assessment of red rashes on the face in an adult patient. DISCUSSION: Diagnosing a red rash on the face requires assessment of symptomology, age of onset, rash morphology and 'clinical clues' that help delineate between differentials. Although the list of differential diagnoses is wide, many of the common diagnoses can be made clinically without the need for investigations. Investigations such as skin biopsy are useful if the diagnosis is unclear, if the rash is not responding to initial treatment and/or a referral to a dermatologist is being considered.

Approach to red, scaly eruptions in the older patient.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with a red scaly eruption often present first to a primary care practitioner. A thorough clinical assessment can help delineate between common causes and assist the clinician with the next steps in management. OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the assessment of acute- to subacute-onset erythematous and scaly plaques that are present on multiple body sites in a patient aged >65 years. DISCUSSION: The differential diagnosis of a red, scaly rash in an older patient includes atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, generalised drug eruption, tinea, scabies and non-bullous pemphigoid. Less common causes include subacute cutaneous lupus and mycosis fungoides. If the diagnosis is unclear after clinical assessment, a skin biopsy sent for histopathology, and/or direct immunofluorescence can be very useful. Management requires consideration of physical impairments, carer availability and cost.

A Survey on Knowledge Gaps in Assessment and Management of Severe Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study of Australian Health Care Providers.

Severe drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are often encountered by health care professionals (HCPs). We evaluated knowledge of doctors and pharmacists in the assessment and management of severe DHRs using a structured questionnaire. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 4 metropolitan hospital networks in Melbourne, Australia. A 13-question, scenario-based multiple-choice questionnaire to assess specific knowledge domains in drug hypersensitivity syndrome recognition, causality attribution, cross-reactivity patterns, appropriate diagnostic tests, and therapy was administered to HCPs of various vocation and specialty groups. Data were analyzed according to profession, self-reported experience, and preparedness in managing severe DHRs. Two hundred thirty-eight participants (45.0% senior doctors, 24.4% junior doctors, and 30.7% pharmacists) across a range of subspecialties achieved an overall median score of 7 (IQR, 5-8)-overall 55.6% correct responses to all questions-with senior doctors outperforming junior doctors and pharmacists (P < .001). The best performance by all participants was in DHR syndrome recognition (60.9%), and the poorest was in diagnostics/therapy (52.0%). HCP group and experience level were significantly associated with better performance in the knowledge domains of cross-reactivity and diagnostics/therapy (P = .003 and < .001, respectively), but not in the domains of syndrome recognition and causality attribution (P > .05). Levels of self-reported preparedness in DHR management were not associated with performance rates in any of the knowledge domains. This study demonstrated significant knowledge gaps in the recognition and management of severe drug hypersensitivity reactions. Targeted multidisciplinary education of staff caring for these patients is needed to improve knowledge gaps.

Think before you shave: Factors influencing choice of biopsy technique for invasive melanoma and effect on definitive management.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Partial biopsies are sometimes used for melanoma diagnosis with anticipated time and cost savings compared to excisional biopsy. However, their impact on subsequent melanoma management is unknown. Determine factors related to choice of partial over excisional biopsy to diagnose invasive melanoma and examine the effect of partial biopsies on definitive melanoma management. METHOD: Retrospective repeated cross-sectional population-based study through the Victorian Cancer Registry of diagnosed melanomas in 2005, 2010 and 2015. A random sample of 400 patients per year, stratified by tumour thickness, was selected. RESULTS: A total of 1200 patients had 833 excisional and 337 partial biopsies. Omission of suspected diagnosis on pathology requests affected 46% (532/1151) of all diagnostic biopsies. Diagnostic suspicion did not influence preference for partial over excisional biopsy [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.2, 95%CI 0.8-1.7; P = 0.40]. The partial:excisional biopsy usage ratio was higher in patients aged > 50 years than patients aged <50 years [relative risk ratios (RRR) 1.5; 95%CI 1.0 to 2.2; P = 0.03]. In 34% and 17% of tumours diagnosed with punch and shave, respectively, three procedures were required for definitive excision instead of two, compared with 5% of excisional biopsies When partial biopsy was used, patients were at greater risk of requiring three-staged excisions when controlled for age, anatomical site, melanoma subtype and thickness (RRR 6.7; 95%CI 4.4-10.1; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic suspicion does not appear to be a major factor influencing choice of biopsy technique. Using partial biopsy to diagnose melanoma often leads to an extra procedure for definitive treatment compared with excisional biopsy.

Adverse Drug Reactions Reported by Healthcare Professionals: Reaction Characteristics and Time to Reporting.

We describe adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting characteristics and factors contributing to length of time to report by healthcare professionals. This is a retrospective study of voluntary reports to an Australian healthcare ADR Review Committee over a 2-year period (2015-2016). Descriptive and univariate models were used for outcomes, employing standardized ADR definitions. Hospital pharmacists reported 84.8% of the 555 ADRs: 70.3% were hospital onset reactions, and 71.7% were at least of moderate severity. Immunologically mediated reactions were most commonly reported (409, 73.7%). The median time to submit an ADR report was 3 (interquartile range 1-10) days. Longer median times to reporting were associated with multiple implicated agents and delayed hypersensitivity reactions, especially severe cutaneous adverse reactions. A total of 650 medications were implicated that involved multiple agents in 165/555 (29.7%) reports. Antimicrobials were the most commonly implicated agents. Immunologically mediated reactions were most commonly associated with antimicrobials and radiocontrast agents (P < .0001, odds ratio [OR] 3.6, 95%CI 2.4-5.5, and P = .04, OR 4.2, 95%CI 1.2-18.2, respectively). Opioids and psychoactive medications were more commonly implicated in nonimmunological reported ADRs (P = .0002, OR 3.9, 95%CI 1.9-7.9, and P < .0001, OR 11.4, 95%CI 4.6-27.8, respectively). Due to the predominant reporting of immunologically mediated reactions, a targeted education program is being planned to improve identification and accuracy of ADR reports, with the overall aim of improved management to ensure quality service provision and patient safety.