Penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a process evaluation, the patient experience.

IF 3.3 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance Pub Date : 2025-08-13 eCollection Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1093/jacamr/dlaf144
Neil Powell, Mathew Upton, Bridie Kent, Jonathan A T Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine
{"title":"Penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a process evaluation, the patient experience.","authors":"Neil Powell, Mathew Upton, Bridie Kent, Jonathan A T Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine","doi":"10.1093/jacamr/dlaf144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Penicillin allergy (penA) records are common, but true penA is rare. PenA records are associated with broad spectrum antibiotic prescribing and negative patient outcomes. We developed a behavioural intervention package to support inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) delivered by a multi-profession non-allergist workforce to remove incorrect penA records from medical and surgical adult inpatients in a UK hospital.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore the experiences, beliefs and concerns of patients who had been offered PADL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews to explore the views of patients admitted to a medical or surgical ward with a penA record and offered PADL between June 2024 and October 2024. Inductive reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty patients were interviewed. Patients that believed their penA to be incorrect and those that described their index reaction as mild were more likely to agree to testing. Patients considered hospital a safe place to be tested. Some patients thought being acutely unwell was not a barrier to testing, whereas others preferred an outpatient setting once discharged from hospital. De-labelled patients described having a good explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL, were grateful for the opportunity and trusted the healthcare worker and the PADL process.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PADL was well accepted by patients who described receiving a good explanation of the PADL process. Index reactions perceived as low severity (e.g. non-severe rashes) and/or doubtful of their penA (e.g. unaware they had a penA record) were more likely to accept PADL. Some who declined inpatient PADL would consider outpatient testing once recovered from their acute illness.</p>","PeriodicalId":14594,"journal":{"name":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","volume":"7 4","pages":"dlaf144"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12344413/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlaf144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Penicillin allergy (penA) records are common, but true penA is rare. PenA records are associated with broad spectrum antibiotic prescribing and negative patient outcomes. We developed a behavioural intervention package to support inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) delivered by a multi-profession non-allergist workforce to remove incorrect penA records from medical and surgical adult inpatients in a UK hospital.

Aims: To explore the experiences, beliefs and concerns of patients who had been offered PADL.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews to explore the views of patients admitted to a medical or surgical ward with a penA record and offered PADL between June 2024 and October 2024. Inductive reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results: Twenty patients were interviewed. Patients that believed their penA to be incorrect and those that described their index reaction as mild were more likely to agree to testing. Patients considered hospital a safe place to be tested. Some patients thought being acutely unwell was not a barrier to testing, whereas others preferred an outpatient setting once discharged from hospital. De-labelled patients described having a good explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL, were grateful for the opportunity and trusted the healthcare worker and the PADL process.

Conclusion: PADL was well accepted by patients who described receiving a good explanation of the PADL process. Index reactions perceived as low severity (e.g. non-severe rashes) and/or doubtful of their penA (e.g. unaware they had a penA record) were more likely to accept PADL. Some who declined inpatient PADL would consider outpatient testing once recovered from their acute illness.

青霉素过敏去标签实施干预在英国医院:一个过程评估,病人的经验。
背景:青霉素过敏(penA)是常见的记录,但真正的penA是罕见的。PenA记录与广谱抗生素处方和阴性患者结果相关。我们开发了一个行为干预包,以支持住院患者青霉素过敏去标签(PADL),由多专业的非过敏专家提供,以消除不正确的penA记录,从内科和外科成人住院患者在英国医院。目的:探讨接受PADL的患者的经历、信念和担忧。方法:采用半结构式访谈法,对2024年6月至2024年10月期间在某内科或外科病房就诊的有penA记录并提供PADL的患者进行调查。采用归纳反身主题分析法对数据进行分析。结果:共访谈20例患者。认为自己的penA不正确的患者和那些将自己的指数反应描述为轻微的患者更有可能同意进行测试。患者认为医院是一个安全的检测场所。一些患者认为急性不适不是检测的障碍,而另一些患者则倾向于出院后的门诊设置。去标签的患者描述了他们对PADL的风险和益处的良好解释,对这个机会表示感激,并信任医护人员和PADL过程。结论:PADL被描述接受PADL过程的良好解释的患者很好地接受。指数反应被认为是低严重性(如非严重皮疹)和/或怀疑他们的penA(如不知道他们有penA记录)更有可能接受PADL。一些拒绝住院PADL的患者一旦从急性疾病中恢复,就会考虑门诊检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信