Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Recognising haemorrhagic rash in children with fever: a survey of parents' knowledge
  1. M Aurel1,2,
  2. F Dubos1,3,
  3. B Motte1,2,
  4. I Pruvost1,2,4,
  5. F Leclerc1,3,4,5,
  6. A Martinot1,2,3,4
  1. 1University of Lille Nord de France, Lille, France
  2. 2Paediatric Emergency and Infectious Diseases Unit, University of Lille Nord de France, CHU Lille, Lille, France
  3. 3EA 2694, Public Health, Epidemiology and Quality of Care, University of Lille Nord de France, Lille, France
  4. 4UDSL, University of Lille Nord de France, Lille, France
  5. 5Paediatric Critical Care Unit, University of Lille Nord de France, CHU Lille, Lille, France
  1. Correspondence to Professor Alain Martinot, Paediatric Emergency and Infectious Diseases Unit, University of Lille Nord de France, CHU Lille, 2, Avenue Oscar Lambret, 59037 Lille CEDEX, France; alain.martinot{at}chru-lille.fr

Abstract

Background Early recognition and treatment of meningococcal disease improves its outcome. Haemorrhagic rash is one of the most specific signs that parents can learn to recognise.

Objective To determine the percentage of parents able to recognise a haemorrhagic rash and perform the tumbler test.

Methods 123 parents of children consulting for mild injuries were interviewed about the significance and recognition of haemorrhagic rash in febrile children.

Results Although 88% of parents undressed their children when they were febrile, it was never to look specifically for a skin rash. Only 7% (95% CI 3% to 12%) were able to recognise a petechial rash and knew the tumbler test.

Conclusion Information campaigns about the significance of haemorrhagic rash and about the tumbler test are needed.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Funding None.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.