Patients' acceptance of a penicillin allergy de-labelling programme in primary care.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
BJGP Open Pub Date : 2025-04-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0136
Marta Santillo, Caity Roleston, Kelsey Armitage, Catherine Porter, Joanne Fielding, Marta Wanat, Shadia Ahmed, Sinisa Savic, Christopher Butler, Sue Pavitt, Jonathan Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine
{"title":"Patients' acceptance of a penicillin allergy de-labelling programme in primary care.","authors":"Marta Santillo, Caity Roleston, Kelsey Armitage, Catherine Porter, Joanne Fielding, Marta Wanat, Shadia Ahmed, Sinisa Savic, Christopher Butler, Sue Pavitt, Jonathan Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>About 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these people are likely to be truly allergic. Consequently, a significant portion of the population is denied first line antibiotics. The ALABAMA trial aimed to determine if a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) was safe and effective in de-labelling patients as allergic and improving antibiotic prescribing and patient health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate patients' experience of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) and their acceptance of de-labelling following a negative allergy test.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who took part in the PAAP intervention arm of the ALABAMA trial.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>As part of a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded in the ALABAMA trial, we conducted interviews with patients in the PAAP intervention arm. Data from interviews with patients was analysed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 28 participants interviewed, two received a positive PAT result and 26 received a negative PAT result; of these, 24 accepted and two declined de-labelling. At point of trial recruitment, many patients already doubted that they were allergic to penicillin. Patients were happy to attend PAT and felt cared for and safe at the hospital. These factors led to most people trusting their negative test result and accepting de-labelling.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The patients we interviewed engaged with the PAAP intervention and, when testing negative, were predominantly willing to have their allergy record changed and to take penicillin in future. We highlight factors which influenced patients' acceptance of de-labelling to facilitate future adoption of PAAP. These factors, which we should consider when planning for penicillin allergy testing services, were: patients identifying themselves as low risk before the test, PAT being perceived as trustful and safe, patients previous experience of penicillin allergy and reactions, patients understanding of penicillin reactions and clear communication after de-labelling.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: About 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these people are likely to be truly allergic. Consequently, a significant portion of the population is denied first line antibiotics. The ALABAMA trial aimed to determine if a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) was safe and effective in de-labelling patients as allergic and improving antibiotic prescribing and patient health outcomes.

Aims: To investigate patients' experience of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) and their acceptance of de-labelling following a negative allergy test.

Design & setting: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who took part in the PAAP intervention arm of the ALABAMA trial.

Method: As part of a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded in the ALABAMA trial, we conducted interviews with patients in the PAAP intervention arm. Data from interviews with patients was analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: Of the 28 participants interviewed, two received a positive PAT result and 26 received a negative PAT result; of these, 24 accepted and two declined de-labelling. At point of trial recruitment, many patients already doubted that they were allergic to penicillin. Patients were happy to attend PAT and felt cared for and safe at the hospital. These factors led to most people trusting their negative test result and accepting de-labelling.

Conclusion: The patients we interviewed engaged with the PAAP intervention and, when testing negative, were predominantly willing to have their allergy record changed and to take penicillin in future. We highlight factors which influenced patients' acceptance of de-labelling to facilitate future adoption of PAAP. These factors, which we should consider when planning for penicillin allergy testing services, were: patients identifying themselves as low risk before the test, PAT being perceived as trustful and safe, patients previous experience of penicillin allergy and reactions, patients understanding of penicillin reactions and clear communication after de-labelling.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信