Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD) is a rare,inherited, chronic blistering disorderthat causes fissuring and erosions, withan estimated prevalence of 1:50,000.1Treatment is often challenging, with currentevidence limited to case series and nopublished treatment guidelines available.

In 2014 the 'Hep B Story App', the first hepatitis B educational app in an Aboriginal language was released. Subsequently, in 2018, it was assessed and adapted before translation into an additional 10 Aboriginal languages. The translation process developed iteratively into a model that may be applied when creating any health resource in Aboriginal languages.The adaptation and translation of the 'Hep B Story' followed a tailored participatory action research (PAR) process involving crucial steps such as extensive community consultation, adaptation of the original material, forward and back translation of the script, content accuracy verification, voiceover recording, and thorough review before the publication of the new version.Iterative PAR cycles shaped the translation process, leading to a refined model applicable to creating health resources in any Aboriginal language. The community-wide consultation yielded widespread chronic hepatitis B education, prompting participants to share the story within their families, advocating for hepatitis B check-ups. The project offered numerous insights and lessons, such as the significance of allocating sufficient time and resources to undertake the process. Additionally, it highlighted the importance of implementing flexible work arrangements and eliminating barriers to work for the translators.Through our extensive work across the Northern Territory, we produced an educational tool for Aboriginal people in their preferred languages and developed a translation model to create resources for different cultural and linguistic groups. SO WHAT?: This translation model provides a rigorous, transferable method for creating accurate health resources for culturally and linguistically diverse populations.

Melioidosis, an infection with the bacterium , is highly endemic in the Top End of the Northern Territory of Australia. The indirect haemagglutination assay (IHA) is the most widely used serology test globally, but it is not standardised among the limited number of laboratories that perform it. While concerns have been raised about the sensitivity of IHA early in melioidosis infections, the advantage of IHA over more recently developed ELISAs is that testing serial dilutions allows a titre to be recorded. While in Australia a titre of 1:40 or higher is considered positive, the specificity at these low positive titres remains uncertain. However, a high titre is considered to represent recent or past true infection with , rather than cross-rection with other environmental species. Also, the natural history of IHA titres over time, in both asymptomatic infection and melioidosis has been little studied. We have assessed the clinical status and serology time courses of all 534 patients who had an IHA titre of 1:640 or higher, over a 20-year period. Of these, 324 (60.7%) were diagnosed with culture-confirmed melioidosis, with varying time courses of diagnosis of melioidosis in relation to the high serology. Of the 210 without confirmed melioidosis, 22 (10.5%) were considered highly likely to be melioidosis despite being culture-negative, and these were all treated as melioidosis. In the remainder, titres mostly gradually decreased over time, but the majority remained seropositive. A small number who had not been treated for melioidosis continued to have high IHA titres over years and activation from latency with a new diagnosis of melioidosis was occasionally documented. This study highlights the importance of a full clinical workup in those found to have high titre melioidosis serology as well as subsequent close clinical surveillance and where resources allow, yearly IHA in those not confirmed or treated as melioidosis.

No abstract available

Antimicrobials are frequently prescribed to neonates who require hospital care, but the influences on clinical decision-making and practice variation in this process are ill-understood. We performed a cross-sectional survey of practitioners who prescribe antimicrobials in 3 Australian neonatal units.During two 5-day data capture periods per center, 56 practitioners reported their general confidence in antimicrobial decision-making for neonates. Then, 4 questionnaires evaluated diagnostic certainty and influences on antimicrobial decision-making for 68 antimicrobial courses and 11 infection evaluations where antimicrobials were not prescribed.Self-reported guideline use at antimicrobial commencement was high (26/31, 84%). Clinical risk factors, clinical signs and laboratory tests contributed variably to decisions to start and cease antimicrobials. Consultation with a colleague contributed to 14/31 (45%) decisions to commence antimicrobials and 13/34 (38%) decisions to cease them. The most frequent responses to questions regarding the likelihood of infection and the possibility of an alternative diagnosis were "some possibility" and "some likelihood." Team concordance in responses ranged from 14% to 50%. While practitioners in roles that denoted more clinical experience had greater general confidence in antimicrobial decision-making, this difference was not observed in real-world clinical situations where infection was not microbiologically confirmed.Clinical, laboratory, practitioner, team and center-based factors each influence antimicrobial prescribing decisions. Clinical uncertainty and differing guidelines likely contribute to practice variation. Future work to inform stewardship efforts should include improved guideline consistency, roles of diagnostic aids and a better understanding of the medicocultural contributors to neonatal antimicrobial prescribing.