临床医生在提交活组织切片检查时说 "排除湿疹 "是什么意思?

Kaycee Nguyen, Clay Cockerell
{"title":"临床医生在提交活组织切片检查时说 \"排除湿疹 \"是什么意思?","authors":"Kaycee Nguyen, Clay Cockerell","doi":"10.25251/skin.8.4.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: “Eczema” encompasses many dermatological conditions and usually manifests with spongiosis histologically. Dermatopathologists often receive biopsy specimens with requests to “rule out eczema.” However, this broad term is limiting and lacks the necessary clinical context for precise diagnoses. \nObjective: This study explored the conditions implied by “rule out eczema” when rendered by clinicians and whether they regard it as synonymous with atopic dermatitis or other spongiotic conditions. Understanding this distinction is vital for guiding appropriate treatment which differs among disparate conditions appearing similar histologically. \nMethod: 63 clinicians (54 dermatologists, 5 physician assistants, 4 nurse practitioners) completed a web-based questionnaire. Participants identified conditions considered when requesting to “rule out eczema,” who completed requisition forms, and whether they modify automated EMR phrases to specify these conditions. \nResults: 83% (52/63) included atopic dermatitis in the differential diagnosis, with “rule out eczema” also referencing nummular eczema (65%), dyshidrotic eczema (54%), contact dermatitis (51%), neurodermatitis (22%), and seborrheic dermatitis (14%). Other conditions included mycosis fungoides, psoriasis, and tinea infections. Most forms were completed by medical assistants (51%) or dermatologists (43%). 81% were modified from the suggested EMR diagnosis before submission. \nConclusion: Because “rule out eczema” is nonspecific and conditions may not be readily distinguished with histology alone, it’s recommended that the phrase be discarded in favor of specifying which disorder the clinician is presumptively diagnosing clinically. Because nonspecific phrases such as “dermatitis unspecified” generated by EMR programs are of limited value, it is not recommended to provide these options for clinicians when submitting biopsy specimens.  ","PeriodicalId":22013,"journal":{"name":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","volume":"43 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Do Clinicians Mean When Submitting a Biopsy as “Rule Out Eczema”\",\"authors\":\"Kaycee Nguyen, Clay Cockerell\",\"doi\":\"10.25251/skin.8.4.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: “Eczema” encompasses many dermatological conditions and usually manifests with spongiosis histologically. Dermatopathologists often receive biopsy specimens with requests to “rule out eczema.” However, this broad term is limiting and lacks the necessary clinical context for precise diagnoses. \\nObjective: This study explored the conditions implied by “rule out eczema” when rendered by clinicians and whether they regard it as synonymous with atopic dermatitis or other spongiotic conditions. Understanding this distinction is vital for guiding appropriate treatment which differs among disparate conditions appearing similar histologically. \\nMethod: 63 clinicians (54 dermatologists, 5 physician assistants, 4 nurse practitioners) completed a web-based questionnaire. Participants identified conditions considered when requesting to “rule out eczema,” who completed requisition forms, and whether they modify automated EMR phrases to specify these conditions. \\nResults: 83% (52/63) included atopic dermatitis in the differential diagnosis, with “rule out eczema” also referencing nummular eczema (65%), dyshidrotic eczema (54%), contact dermatitis (51%), neurodermatitis (22%), and seborrheic dermatitis (14%). Other conditions included mycosis fungoides, psoriasis, and tinea infections. Most forms were completed by medical assistants (51%) or dermatologists (43%). 81% were modified from the suggested EMR diagnosis before submission. \\nConclusion: Because “rule out eczema” is nonspecific and conditions may not be readily distinguished with histology alone, it’s recommended that the phrase be discarded in favor of specifying which disorder the clinician is presumptively diagnosing clinically. Because nonspecific phrases such as “dermatitis unspecified” generated by EMR programs are of limited value, it is not recommended to provide these options for clinicians when submitting biopsy specimens.  \",\"PeriodicalId\":22013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine\",\"volume\":\"43 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.8.4.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.8.4.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:"湿疹 "包括多种皮肤病,组织学上通常表现为海绵状血管扩张。皮肤病理学家经常收到活检标本,要求 "排除湿疹"。然而,这一宽泛的术语具有局限性,缺乏必要的临床背景,无法进行精确诊断。研究目的本研究探讨了临床医生在提出 "排除湿疹 "时所隐含的条件,以及他们是否将其视为特应性皮炎或其他海绵状疾病的同义词。了解这种区别对于指导适当的治疗至关重要,因为不同的病症在组织学上看似相似,但治疗方法却有所不同。方法:63 名临床医生(54 名皮肤科医生、5 名医生助理、4 名执业护士)填写了一份网络问卷。参与者指出了在要求 "排除湿疹 "时所考虑的条件、谁填写了申请表以及他们是否修改了自动 EMR 短语以指定这些条件。结果:83%(52/63)的人将特应性皮炎列入鉴别诊断,"排除湿疹 "还包括麻疹性湿疹(65%)、湿疹性湿疹(54%)、接触性皮炎(51%)、神经性皮炎(22%)和脂溢性皮炎(14%)。其他疾病包括真菌病、银屑病和癣菌感染。大多数表格由医疗助理(51%)或皮肤科医生(43%)填写。81%的表格在提交前根据建议的电子病历诊断进行了修改。结论:由于 "排除湿疹 "是非特异性的,而且仅凭组织学可能无法轻易区分各种疾病,因此建议摒弃该短语,转而明确指出临床医生在临床上假定诊断的疾病。由于 EMR 程序生成的 "未指定皮炎 "等非特异性短语价值有限,因此不建议临床医生在提交活检样本时提供这些选项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What Do Clinicians Mean When Submitting a Biopsy as “Rule Out Eczema”
Background: “Eczema” encompasses many dermatological conditions and usually manifests with spongiosis histologically. Dermatopathologists often receive biopsy specimens with requests to “rule out eczema.” However, this broad term is limiting and lacks the necessary clinical context for precise diagnoses. Objective: This study explored the conditions implied by “rule out eczema” when rendered by clinicians and whether they regard it as synonymous with atopic dermatitis or other spongiotic conditions. Understanding this distinction is vital for guiding appropriate treatment which differs among disparate conditions appearing similar histologically. Method: 63 clinicians (54 dermatologists, 5 physician assistants, 4 nurse practitioners) completed a web-based questionnaire. Participants identified conditions considered when requesting to “rule out eczema,” who completed requisition forms, and whether they modify automated EMR phrases to specify these conditions. Results: 83% (52/63) included atopic dermatitis in the differential diagnosis, with “rule out eczema” also referencing nummular eczema (65%), dyshidrotic eczema (54%), contact dermatitis (51%), neurodermatitis (22%), and seborrheic dermatitis (14%). Other conditions included mycosis fungoides, psoriasis, and tinea infections. Most forms were completed by medical assistants (51%) or dermatologists (43%). 81% were modified from the suggested EMR diagnosis before submission. Conclusion: Because “rule out eczema” is nonspecific and conditions may not be readily distinguished with histology alone, it’s recommended that the phrase be discarded in favor of specifying which disorder the clinician is presumptively diagnosing clinically. Because nonspecific phrases such as “dermatitis unspecified” generated by EMR programs are of limited value, it is not recommended to provide these options for clinicians when submitting biopsy specimens.  
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Off-Label Uses of Upadacitinib Stability of Long-Term Therapeutic Responses to Tralokinumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis What Do Clinicians Mean When Submitting a Biopsy as “Rule Out Eczema” Deucravacitinib in Plaque Psoriasis: Maintenance of Response Over 4 Years in the Phase 3 POETYK PSO-1, PSO-2, and LTE Trials Zosteriform Atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini: A Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1