Search

Summary: Background: Occupational hand dermatitis poses a serious risk for nurses. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of a complex intervention in reducing the prevalence of hand dermatitis in nurses Methods: This was a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted at 35 hospital trusts, health boards or universities in the UK. Participants were (i) first‐year student nurses with a history of atopic conditions or (ii) intensive care unit (ICU) nurses. Participants at intervention sites received access to a behavioural change programme plus moisturizing creams. Participants at control sites received usual care. The primary outcome was the change of prevalent dermatitis at follow‐up (adjusted for baseline dermatitis) in the intervention vs. the control group. Randomization was blinded to everyone bar the trials unit to ensure allocation concealment. The trial was registered on the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN53303171. Results: Fourteen sites were allocated to the intervention arm and 21 to the control arm. In total 2040 (69·5%) nurses consented to participate and were included in the intention‐to‐treat analysis. The baseline questionnaire was completed by 1727 (84·7%) participants. Overall, 789 (91·6%) ICU nurses and 938 (84·0%) student nurses returned completed questionnaires. Of these, 994 (57·6%) had photographs taken at baseline and follow‐up (12–15 months). When adjusted for baseline prevalence of dermatitis and follow‐up interval, the odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for hand dermatitis at follow‐up in the intervention group relative to the controls were 0·72 (0·33–1·55) and 0·62 (0·35–1·10) for student and ICU nurses, respectively. No harms were reported. Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether our intervention was effective in reducing hand dermatitis in our populations. Linked Comment: Brans. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:411–412. What is already known about this topics? Nurses are at high risk of developing hand dermatitis.Educational interventions are only partially successful in preventing hand dermatitis in healthcare workers. What does this study add? The nurse participants in our study had a high level of positive beliefs about good hand care; however, this was not translated sufficiently into their behaviours even when they were provided with access to a behavioural change programme and given ready access to hand moisturizers.The behavioural change programme intervention did not have a significant effect on reducing hand dermatitis among at‐risk nurses. Linked Comment: Brans. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:411–412. Plain language summary available online [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their raw state, enzymes of bacterial/fungal origin cause allergic reactions in the lung. Proteolytic enzymes also cause irritation to skin, eyes and the respiratory tract. For 40 years, encapsulated enzymes have been used worldwide in detergent products, especially laundry formulations, and have increasing importance due to biodegradability and functionality at low temperatures, offering environmental benefits. Uniquely to the U.K., for years it has been suggested that the inclusion of enzymes in such products leads to adverse skin reactions, including erythema, pruritus and exacerbation of eczema. In this review, we look at the facts, asking whether there is evidence that the hazards identified for enzymes translate into any risk for consumer health. By considering the actual exposures in consumer use and exaggerated product usage, it is concluded that the irritating and allergenic hazards of enzyme raw materials do not translate into a risk of skin reactions, either irritant or allergic. Investigations of numerous individuals with skin complaints attributed to laundry products demonstrate convincingly that enzymes were not responsible. Indeed, enzyme-containing laundry products have an extensive history of safe use. Thus, the supposed adverse effects of enzymes on skin seem to be a consequence of a mythology. The important practical lesson is that when primary or secondary care practitioners are presented with a skin complaint, it should not be dismissed as a result of using an enzyme-containing laundry product as the diagnosis will certainly lie elsewhere. Education for healthcare professionals could usefully be enhanced to take this on board. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Here we provide a synopsis of the main clinical and research advances in clinical, epidemiological and biological dermatology that were presented at the meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) held during 4–7 July 2006, in Manchester, U.K. Only the more important advances or summaries of findings are mentioned. The meeting was held at the Manchester International Conference Centre ( Fig. 1 ). The annual dinner was held at Manchester Town Hall, in the Great Hall decorated with magnificent murals by Ford Madox Brown, with Dr Susan Burge as host. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Photoallergic contact dermatitis can be difficult to diagnose if not appropriately investigated. Currently, the most common U.K. photoallergens appear to be sunscreen chemicals. The investigation of choice is photopatch testing (PPT), which is probably underused. In part, this is due to differences in methodology and results interpretation. Objectives To conduct PPT using a group of sunscreen chemicals, defined indications and a standardized methodology including interpretation and relevance of reactions in patients attending for investigation at 17 centres across the U.K., Ireland and the Netherlands. Methods Patients ( n = 1155) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were investigated with PPT using sunscreen chemicals in addition to suspected topical products. Readings were taken at 24, 48 and 72 h following standardized ultraviolet A irradiation (5 J cm−2). The clinical relevance of any reaction was recorded. Results Of the 1155, 130 had allergic reactions (11·3%). Of these, 51 had photoallergy (PA) (4·4%), 64 had contact allergy (CA) (5·5%), and 15 patients had combined PA and CA (1·3%). Multiple PA was seen in some. The most common photoallergen was benzophenone-3 (27 reactions; 21%). Most reactions (60%) were clinically relevant. The most common indication for testing in patients found to have PA was a history of reacting to a sunscreen (41%). The other 59% had an exposed-site dermatitis/skin problem or a photodermatosis. Some centres ( n = 8) performed readings after the standard 48-h reading, and an extra 32 PA and 22 CA reactions were detected, which were not evident at 48 h. A new photoallergen (octyl triazone) was detected in two patients. Conclusions Sunscreen PA and CA are probably equally uncommon. Most reactions, of both reaction types, were relevant clinically. A large proportion of patients (59%) found to have PA was unaware of reacting to a sunscreen chemical, suggesting that PA should be considered as an explanation in any exposed-site dermatitis. Although this study focused on reactions at 48 h postirradiation, readings performed up to 96 h, while inconvenient, add value by detecting additional relevant responses. A previously unknown photoallergen was found, highlighting the need for awareness of novel photoallergens in the marketplace. A standardized PPT method not only encourages more use of this investigation, but also facilitates comparison of results between centres and so will improve our understanding of PA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a recent dramatic re-emergence of syphilis in the UK. This article describes the varied clinical manifestations of secondary syphilis and describes the diagnosis and current guidelines for treatment, especially in association with human immunodeficiency virus infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Herein is a synopsis of the main research and clinical findings presented at the British Association of Dermatologists meeting held during 6–9 July 2004, in Belfast, U.K. The conference highlighted the progress that has been made in understanding the increasing biological, epidemiological and therapeutic advances that have been made recently in the field of dermatology. The authors highlight the more important advances or summaries, but this is not meant as a substitute for reading the conference proceedings and related references quoted in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent Dermatological Care Working Group report highlighted important deficiencies in the dermatology service in the UK and recommended that care should move closer to the patient. The report stated that 'expert patients' could become 'sharers in their care' and are best placed to improve their own self management. One area that could benefit greatly from increased patient education and participation is the use of emollients. Emollients are frequently prescribed for patients with eczema and other dry skin conditions. Although the benefits of emollient therapy are widely accepted, prescribing practices vary considerably, often according to physicians' individual preferences. Patients can receive confusing or conflicting treatment advice, leading to frustration, non-compliance, and difficulty in following an effective regimen. To promote the effective use of emollients it is important for patients and health professionals to understand the functions of the skin and the principles of emollient use and application. We propose a set of simple guidelines for emollient therapy in eczema care to improve day-to-day management by health professionals in the community and to promote consistent practices by patients. These guidelines form the ABC dry skin and eczema management programme supported by the National Eczema Society and accredited by the British Skin Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A self-completion questionnaire sent to 2600 Nottinghamshire members of the Graphical Paper and Media Union elicited a 62% response. Forty one per cent of respondents reported suffering a skin complaint at some time and 11% had a current skin problem on the hand. This paper reports the validation stage of the study. Samples of 45 ‘cases’ of self-reported dermatitis and 60 ‘controls’, who reported they had never suffered a skin complaint, were clinically examined. All 45 self-reported cases were clinically confirmed as dermatitis. Occupationally related irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) was diagnosed in 20 (44%); 26 (58%) complaints were thought to be induced or exacerbated by occupation. Of the controls, 21 (35%) were also diagnosed with a skin complaint, the majority being mild, with an occupational association in 17, the majority (15) being ICD. Sixteen ICD cases were patch tested resulting in positive reactions to colophony, neomycin, nickel and potassium dichromate (2 of each). Two cases of basal cell carcinoma on the face were also identified, of which the participants were unaware. Although there was no false positive self-reporting there was a considerable number of false negatives, demonstrating the importance of clinical validation of questionnaires relating to industrial skin disease. This study has highlighted the need for improvement in skin care provision in the printing industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the demonstration of licensed doctors in Great Britain to test if they are up to date with the medical practice. He says that the processes and systems for its introduction is straightforward and not too time-consuming. He also states that the lynchpin of revalidation is an annual assessment, wherein they have to demonstrate that they are up to date and fit to practice. He also mentions that one way for dermatologists to demonstrate is to pass a knowledge-based exam.

Proposes a dermatology nurse-led clinic model in Primary Care Trusts to improve the capacity and quality of secondary dermatological care in Great Britain. Other models of secondary dermatology care; Implementation of the model; Success of the model.

Examines the prevalence of work-related contact dermatitis among mold-makers in the pottery industry in Great Britain. Analysis of undiluted soluble oil applied as releasing agent from rubber cases; Sensitization risk on the application of undiluted oil; Components of the oil.

Background: All centres use an empirically determined set of 'standard' test allergens for patch testing that contain the commoner environmental sensitizers. Objectives To assess the validity of the British standard series of 12 allergens used in addition to the 23 already in the European standard series., Patients and Methods: Results for 3062 consecutive patients patch tested in seven centres across the United Kingdom during the year 2000 were analysed., Results: The additional allergens from the British series and positive rates were: methyl dibromoglutaronitrile 2.4%, carba mix 1.6%, tixocortol pivalate 1.5%, ethylenediamine 1.3%, cetearyl alcohol 0.8%, 2-bromo-2-nitropane-1,3-diol 0.8%, diazolidinyl urea 0.7%, chlorocresol 0.6%, budesonide 0.6%, fusidic acid 0.5%, imidazolidinyl urea 0.5%, and chloroxylenol 0.4%. The allergens with the lowest positive rate in the European standard series were primin at 0.6% and isopropyl-phenyl-para-phenylenediamine at 0.4%., Conclusions: The 12 allergens in the British series should continue being tested as a standard addition to the European series within the U.K. The collection of data in this manner to allow comparisons between centres shows differences that reflect selection criteria and interpretation of results, and offers a useful tool for audit and clinical governance. Testing fewer than 1 : 2150 population may indicate underprovision of service. Similarly, rates of sensitization for nickel contact allergy above 26% and for fragrance mix above 16% (the upper 95% confidence intervals) should stimulate inquiry into the reasons behind this.

The objective of this study was to compare diluted Compositae mix with sesquiterpene lactone mix as a marker for Compositae dermatitis. Patients undergoing diagnostic patch testing in 8 British Isles patch test centres were also patch tested to sesquiterpene lactone mix (0.1% pet.) and Compositae mix (3% pet. or 0.6% pet.). Of a total of 5574 patients tested, 71 (1.3%) reacted to Compositae mix, 57 (1.0%) reacted to sesquiterpene lactone mix, and 45 to both. Diluted Compositae mix remained a more sensitive screening marker for Compositae allergy. We recommend that patients are patch tested to both agents.