{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.056142668428005284, 'fraction_numerical': 0.047556142668428, 'mean_word_length': 4.826923076923077, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Presentations to emergency departments in Melbourne, Australia diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis.

BACKGROUND
This study investigated cases diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in emergency departments (EDs) and management.


METHODS
A multi-site retrospective study of patients attending EDs in metropolitan Melbourne between July 2017 and June 2018 was performed. Using International Statistical Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) codes, the Victorian Agency for Health Information generated a list of cases of contact dermatitis (CD). Demographic and clinical data were analysed.


RESULTS
228 patients from 14 different sites were diagnosed with ACD. Hair dyes caused the most cases, and one such case was admitted to hospital. It was apparent from the specified causes that cases of irritant CD were misdiagnosed as ACD. There were significant differences in management with dermatology input, with dermatologists more often advising oral corticosteroids (33.3% vs 14.5%, p= 0.004) topical corticosteroids (92.9% vs 38.7% p <0.01), emollients (38.1% vs 20.4%, p = 0.01) and less often advising antihistamines (16.7% vs 44.6%, p <0.001). With dermatology input, potent or very potent steroids were more likely to be prescribed (69.3% vs 11.1%, p < 0.001); without, a mild potency steroid was more likely to be prescribed (63.9% vs 4%, p=0.01).


CONCLUSION
Improved understanding, diagnosis and management of CD is needed in EDs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.