O09 Improving referral quality for infantile haemangiomas: audit of 76 cases and proposal for a standardised national form

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Incomplete referral information for infantile haemangiomas (IH) delays triage decisions and requires additional time to contact families for essential details. This audit evaluated referral quality to inform development of a standardised referral form enabling immediate clinical decision-making. METHODS: We audited 76 consecutive IH referrals in patients less than 12 months of age, analysing completeness of information including lesion number, size, location, ulceration status, photographs, gestational age, birthweight, and comorbidities. Time from referral to triage decision and clinic appointment was measured. RESULTS: The mean age at referral was 3.8 months (range 0.1-11.9). Referrals came primarily from GPs (35.5%), paediatric registrars (25.0%), and dermatology registrars (19.7%). The mean time to triage was 3.9 days, and the mean time to being seen was 45 days. Thirty-five percent of patients required propranolol.Only 44.7% of referrals contained all three essential descriptors (number, size, location). Whilst location was documented in 96.1% and number in 86.8%, size was missing in 52.6%. Photographs were included in 40.8%, ulceration status in 23.7%, gestational age in 39.5%, birthweight in 19.7%, and comorbidities in 14.5%.These missing details are critical for risk stratification, determining treatment setting, and identifying premature or medically complex infants requiring admission for propranolol initiation. CONCLUSION: Referral information for infantile haemangiomas is frequently incomplete, particularly regarding size, gestational age, and comorbidities. These omissions delay triage and compromise risk stratification. A standardised referral form capturing essential details would improve efficiency and enable immediate decision-making about management. We will present the proposed form at the meeting.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.