My recent visit to Park Nicollet Urgent Care left me feeling deeply frustrated and unheard. Seeking medical attention for what I believed to be a reaction to sunscreen, I encountered a physician who, in my opinion, prioritized speed over thoroughness and disregarded my concerns. This experience, unfortunately, resulted in a misdiagnosis and a significant waste of my time.
The encounter began with a consultation with Dr. Annie M Fontaine, MD, which I estimate lasted no more than six minutes. During this brief period, the physical examination felt rushed and inadequate. My heart was auscultated in a mere three locations for a combined total of about seven seconds. Lung auscultation was similarly brief, performed at the triangle of auscultation for only one breath on each side of my lower lobes. Beyond a cursory glance at my skin, a more detailed examination of the most symptomatic areas, which I verbally emphasized, was not conducted.
I clearly explained to Dr. Fontaine that I was experiencing an episode of atopic dermatitis triggered by exposure to an aerosol sunscreen spray. I detailed how the rash and associated symptoms were most severe in areas of greater sunscreen application, specifically my face, ears, and neck. I also mentioned significant initial swelling, including partial eye closure, which had subsided somewhat over the three days since the reaction began. While my arms were less affected due to sun-protective clothing, my legs also presented with a rash, though less severe than on my head, correlating with less sunscreen use. The direct relationship between sunscreen application and symptom severity was evident.
Despite this clear explanation and the obvious correlation, Dr. Fontaine offered a contrasting diagnosis. She remarked that she frequently observes similar conditions in older men who are new to spring golfing – a comparison that felt dismissive and irrelevant to my situation as a 38-year-old. To seemingly validate her own presumptive diagnosis, she posed a single question: whether a rash was present in areas not exposed to the sun. Upon my negative response, reiterating that sunscreen was not applied to those areas and that symptoms were concentrated where it was, she declared my condition to be polymorphous light eruption (PLE), not a reaction to the sunscreen. Her suggestion to “look it up” came across as condescending, implying a lack of patient knowledge or credibility.
Prior to my visit, I had already researched and concluded that my symptoms aligned with atopic dermatitis, a suspicion shared by experienced nurses I had consulted. Seeking relief from the systemic reaction and hoping to expedite recovery, I requested an oral steroid. While other nurses had even suggested an epinephrine shot, which I did not request, Dr. Fontaine dismissed the idea of oral steroids as “overkill,” asserting that the condition would resolve on its own. As a fellow healthcare professional, I am well aware that many conditions do self-resolve, but my aim was to manage the severity and duration of my symptoms.
Now, over a week later, the burning, itching, and peeling on my face and ears persist. These symptoms are particularly pronounced along my hairline, facial hair, eyebrows, and ears, likely because the sunscreen adhered more effectively to these hairy areas, causing greater irritation than on the bare skin. Further research comparing PLE and atopic dermatitis rashes has only reinforced my initial self-diagnosis throughout the week. The presentation of my rash continues to be inconsistent with PLE. Subsequently, other healthcare providers have also concurred that a misdiagnosis occurred. The situation seemed straightforward, yet a proper examination and attentive listening appeared to be sacrificed.
Adding to my disappointment, the total visit time was excessively long despite the fleeting consultation. If the direct interaction with the physician was a mere few minutes, the four-hour overall visit duration is inexplicable. Upon check-in, I was informed of an estimated 90-minute wait. Had I known the wait would be considerably longer, I would have chosen one of the numerous other urgent care facilities in the vicinity. Approximately two hours after check-in, my vitals were taken. While my blood pressure was not verbally communicated at the time, it was later documented in my paperwork. Another hour passed before I was escorted to a room, where I waited for an additional hour before Dr. Fontaine’s brief appearance. Following the short consultation, a further fifteen to twenty-minute wait ensued for the doctor to return with paperwork, ultimately resulting in a prescription for hydrocortisone cream. Unfortunately, this topical steroid proved to be irritating upon application. Even aloe vera, typically soothing, exacerbated the burning sensation, which continues to occur even a week later. This persistent irritation further undermines the PLE diagnosis, as aloe would typically provide relief for sunburn or PLE.
My overall experience at Park Nicollet Urgent Care was profoundly disappointing. It has been so discouraging that I have hesitated to seek care elsewhere and have reluctantly allowed the condition to “heal on its own,” as Dr. Fontaine so casually suggested. I felt genuinely disregarded as a person and disrespected as a patient during my visit and interaction with this provider. Furthermore, this occurred on my only day off after a vacation, a day intended for workweek preparation, which was instead largely consumed by this unproductive medical appointment. After enduring ten hours of commuting and waiting in lines the preceding day, spending another four hours waiting at the urgent care was exceptionally frustrating. This experience has undoubtedly left me with a sense of bitterness and a strong inclination to explore alternative urgent care options in the future.
