ArticleCureus2025
Dermatological Presentations in the Adult Emergency Department: A Retrospective Audit of Frequency, Management, and Outcomes in a UK Tertiary Centre.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Dermatological conditions frequently present to emergency departments (EDs), ranging from benign rashes to severe immunological emergencies. However, most ED clinicians receive little or no formal dermatology training, leading to variation in management and incomplete documentation, particularly of drug history and follow-up planning. In the absence of standardised referral pathways or local ED dermatology protocols, the quality of care is inconsistent and may not align with national standards. Objective To evaluate the frequency, diagnostic categories, management, and clinical outcomes of dermatology-related presentations to the adult ED. The audit aimed to assess compliance with national guidelines and determine whether the observed gaps highlight the need for a structured local dermatology protocol and standardised referral pathway. Methods A retrospective audit was conducted at a tertiary ED over a three-month period (March-June 2025). Data for 80 patients were extracted from electronic records. Variables included demographics, clinical diagnoses, treatments administered, investigations performed, comorbidities, and disposition outcomes. The audit was benchmarked against National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) guidelines. Results Of 80 patients, 60% were female, and the mean age was 42 years (range 8-95). Allergic reactions (23.8%) and cellulitis/abscess (20%) were the most common diagnoses. Blood tests were performed in 61.3% of patients; 60% received treatment. Antibiotics (20%) and antihistamines (12.5%) were commonly used. Dermatology follow-up occurred in only 6.3% of cases. A total of 21 patients (26.3%) were admitted, while 37.5% had no documented follow-up. Documentation of drug history was inconsistent. Conclusion Dermatological cases are a frequent and varied component of ED workload, but are not consistently managed according to guidelines. The findings highlight the impact of limited dermatology training on documentation and management, and demonstrate the need for a local dermatology protocol, improved education for ED staff, and standardised follow-up pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.