TY - JOUR
T1 - The appropriateness of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergist clinical ward teams
AU - Powell, Neil
AU - Elkhalifa, Shuayb
AU - Hearsey, Daniel
AU - Wilcock, Michael
AU - Sandoe, Jonathan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s)
PY - 2024/7
Y1 - 2024/7
N2 - Objectives: We aimed to assess the appropriateness of penicillin allergy (PenA) assessment conducted by clinical teams and to review the safety of subsequent exposure of these patients to penicillin. Methods: Opportunistic, prospective observational study of usual clinical care, between 16 May 2023 and 14 August 2023, of inpatients with a PenA and requiring antibiotics, in a 750-bed hospital in England. To assess the appropriateness of management, PenA patients prescribed penicillins were grouped into risk categories using a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool: eligible for de-label on history alone (direct de-label; DDL), eligible for direct oral challenge (DOC), high risk or unable to obtain history. Results: Of the 123 patients admitted with a PenA (or sensitivity record) and exposed to a penicillin, data were collected for 50. Their PenA records were grouped follows: eligible for DDL 34 (68%), eligible for DOC 11 (22%), high risk 4 (8%) and unable to obtain history 1 (2%). In 14/50 (28%) patients there was no evidence of a current PenA assessment in the medical notes. Conclusions: Using the allergy risk tool, most patients with PenA records were exposed to penicillin appropriately. However, patients meeting high-risk criteria were also exposed to penicillin when the tool excluded them. PenA assessment needs to be carried out with appropriate training and governance structures in place.
AB - Objectives: We aimed to assess the appropriateness of penicillin allergy (PenA) assessment conducted by clinical teams and to review the safety of subsequent exposure of these patients to penicillin. Methods: Opportunistic, prospective observational study of usual clinical care, between 16 May 2023 and 14 August 2023, of inpatients with a PenA and requiring antibiotics, in a 750-bed hospital in England. To assess the appropriateness of management, PenA patients prescribed penicillins were grouped into risk categories using a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool: eligible for de-label on history alone (direct de-label; DDL), eligible for direct oral challenge (DOC), high risk or unable to obtain history. Results: Of the 123 patients admitted with a PenA (or sensitivity record) and exposed to a penicillin, data were collected for 50. Their PenA records were grouped follows: eligible for DDL 34 (68%), eligible for DOC 11 (22%), high risk 4 (8%) and unable to obtain history 1 (2%). In 14/50 (28%) patients there was no evidence of a current PenA assessment in the medical notes. Conclusions: Using the allergy risk tool, most patients with PenA records were exposed to penicillin appropriately. However, patients meeting high-risk criteria were also exposed to penicillin when the tool excluded them. PenA assessment needs to be carried out with appropriate training and governance structures in place.
KW - Non-allergist
KW - Penicillin allergy
KW - Penicillin allergy de-labelling
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85198363581&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100225
DO - 10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100225
M3 - Article
C2 - 38944245
AN - SCOPUS:85198363581
SN - 1470-2118
VL - 24
JO - Clinical Medicine
JF - Clinical Medicine
IS - 4
M1 - 100225
ER -