Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 219, No. 3, 2009
Issue release date: October 2009
Dermatology 2009;219:225–231
(DOI:10.1159/000232390)

Dermatologists in Hospital Wards: An 8-Year Study of Dermatology Consultations

Peñate Y. · Guillermo N. · Melwani P. · Martel R. · Borrego L.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Background: The value of dermatologists as consultants is increasing. Objective: To evaluate the activity of dermatologists as inpatient consultants. Methods: Retrospective study of consultations to Dermatology of inpatients, visits per consultation, referral service, procedures performed, delay until visit and diagnoses based on ICD-9. Results: 3,144 requests generated 4,824 visits, 200 biopsies, 107 cultures and other procedures. The mean delay between request and visit was 0.75 days. The requesting service was recorded in 3,097 cases: 21.5% by Internal Medicine, 11.4% by Pediatrics, 8.3% by Neurology and 6.2% by the Infectious Diseases Unit. Follow-up was recommended in 12.4% by the Dermatology Service and in 8% by a dermatologist. Reliable diagnoses were recorded for 2,832 consultations. The most frequent diagnostic groups were diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (ICD-9: 680–709) in 58%, infectious and parasitic diseases (ICD-9: 001–139) in 20%, and neoplasm (ICD-9: 140–239) in 5.7%. The most frequent diagnoses were contact dermatitis (ICD-9: 692.X) in 8.9%, drug reactions (ICD-9: 693.0) in 7.4%, candidiasis (ICD-9:112.X) in 7.1% and seborrheic dermatitis (ICD-9: 690) in 5.3%. Conclusions: Most diagnoses were of a specific cutaneous disease and the dermatologist would be in the best position to evaluate those that inpatients acquire.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Kerdel FA: Hospital dermatology: are dermatologists spectators or players? Arch Dermatol 2000;136:65–66.
  2. Chren MM: Dermatologic consultations – how can we know if we are effective? Initial methodologic considerations for the critical assessment of medical interventions performed by physicians. Arch Dermatol 1994;130:1052–1054.
  3. Nahass GT: Inpatient dermatology consultation. Dermatol Clin 2000;18:533–542.
  4. Montero Ruiz E, López Álvarez J, Hernández Ahijado C: A study of interconsultations requested to an internal medicine department. Rev Clin Esp 2004;204:507–510.
  5. http://www.msc.es/estadEstudios/ecie9mc/webcie9mc/webcie9mc.htm. Accessed June 16, 2008.
  6. http://www.dmi.columbia.edu/hripcsak/icd9/. Accessed June 16, 2008.
  7. Feldman SR, Fleischer AB, McConnell RC: Most common dermatologic problems identified by internists, 1990–1994. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:726–730.
  8. Sherertz EF: Inpatient dermatology consultations at a medical center. Arch Dermatol 1984;120:1137.
  9. Hardwick N, Saxe N: Patterns of dermatology referrals in a general hospital. Br J Dermatol 1986;115:167–176.
  10. Falanga V, Schachner LA, Rae V, et al: Dermatologic consultations in the hospital setting. Arch Dermatol 1994;130:1022–1025.
  11. Itin PH: Impact of a department of dermatology within the global concept of a large hospital setting – analysis of 594 consultations requested by non-dermatologists. Dermatology 1999;199:79.
  12. Fischer M, Bergert H, Marsch WC: The dermatologic consultation. Hautarzt 2004;55:543–548.
  13. Walia NS, Deb S: Dermatology referrals in the hospital setting. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2004;70:285–287.
  14. Arora PN, Aggarwal SK, Ramakrishnan SK: Analysis of dermatological referrals (a series of 662 cases from Base and Army Hospital complex). Indian J Dermatol 1989;34:1–8.
  15. Antic M, Conen D, Itin PH: Teaching effects of dermatological consultations on non-dermatologists in the field of internal medicine. A study of 1,290 inpatients. Dermatology 2004;208:32–37.
  16. Fox LP: Inpatient dermatology. Semin Cutan Med Surg 2007;26:131–132.
  17. Más Sesé G, Hernández Hortelano E, González Caballero G, et al: A descriptive study of intrahospital consultation to a neurological department. Neurologia 2006;21:400–404.

    External Resources

  18. Gross RJ, Caputo GM (eds): Kammerer and Gross’ Medical Consultation: The Internist on Surgical, Obstetric, and Psychiatric Services, ed 3. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1998.
  19. Casanova JM, Sanmartín V, Soria X, et al: Childhood dermatosis in a dermatology clinic of a general university hospital in Spain. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2008;99:111–118.
  20. Feldman SR: Looking beyond the borders of our specialty: The 2006 Clarence S. Livingood MD Lecture. Dermatol Online J 2007;13:20.

    External Resources

  21. Perry HO: Why a dermatologic consultation? Cutis 1999;63:316.
  22. Remlinger KA: Cutaneous reactions to chemotherapy drugs: the art of consultation. Arch Dermatol 2003;139:77–81.
  23. Goldman L, Lee T, Rudd P: Ten commandments for effective consultations. Arch Intern Med 1983;143:1753–1755.
  24. Salerno SM, Hurst FP, Halvorson S, Mercado DL: Principles of effective consultation: an update for the 21st-century consultant. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:271–275.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50