Thanks for that Emile. I suppose that is what we tend to do but without
quite knowing what it is we are doing, if that makes sense. And there
has to me multiple PhDs in your last sentence!
Declan
<<I suspect that the purpuric rash in a child with NOTHING else is
innocent, especially in the common situation, of a parent having noticed
it the night before and ambled down to the surgery for an opinion. The
purpura of septicaemia means that DIC is occurring and that really is
happening to an ill child. I've seen this in many kids in the days when
I worked at a regional ID unit, some had no fever, but all looked sick.
Of the two in GP (only two, thank God) both were sicker than the
objective findings would have you believe.
Now, what we need to do is persuade the powers that be that A GP's eye,
and opinion on clinical diagnosis, are valuable.>>
|