Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to letter by Kakleas et al: Utilisation and accuracy of the emergency care data set in children with food allergy and anaphylaxis
  1. Benjamin M Bloom1,
  2. Thomas C Hughes2
  1. 1 Emergency Department, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2 Emergency Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Benjamin M Bloom, Emergency Department, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; ben.bloom{at}

Statistics from

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.

Dear Editor,

We were interested to read the letter by Kakleas and colleagues.1 They report three findings.

The first is that of 89 children referred to an allergy clinic, diagnoses made in the Emergency Department (ED) clinical notes matched the Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS) diagnosis in 60% of cases (43 children with ‘other allergic reaction’ and 10 children with ‘anaphylaxis’). The second is that in the ED clinical notes, clinicians made two allergy diagnoses that are not available in ECDS (cow’s milk protein allergy and non-IgE allergy, occurring in 10 and 2 cases respectively).

Their final finding is that diagnoses made in an allergy clinic were, in descending order of frequency: food allergy, urticaria, cow’s milk protein allergy and food/skin allergy. They note that the diagnosis of urticaria made in the allergy clinic is not usually a diagnosis associated with allergy. ‘Urticaria’ is in fact available in ECDS, in the ‘Skin and soft tissues’ subgroup, not the ‘Allergy’ subgroup. This implies that in those cases at least, …

View Full Text


  • Handling editor Simon Carley

  • Contributors BMB and TCH substantially contributed to the conception and design. Both authors gave final approval of the submitted version. Both authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

Linked Articles