10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient and Prescriber Views of Penicillin Allergy Testing and Subsequent Antibiotic Use: A Rapid Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          About 10% of U.K. patients believe that they are allergic to penicillin and have a “penicillin allergy label” in their primary care health record. However, around 90% of these patients may be mislabelled. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy labels can help to reduce unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use. A rapid review was undertaken of papers exploring patient and/or clinician views and experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) services and the influences on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in the context of penicillin allergy. We reviewed English-language publications published up to November 2017. Limited evidence on patients’ experiences of PAT highlighted advantages to testing as well as a number of concerns. Clinicians reported uncertainty about referral criteria for PAT. Following PAT and a negative result, a number of clinicians and patients remained reluctant to prescribe and consume penicillins. This appeared to reflect a lack of confidence in the test result and fear of subsequent reactions to penicillins. The findings suggest lack of awareness and knowledge of PAT services by both clinicians and patients. In order to ensure correct penicillin allergy diagnosis, clinicians and patients need to be supported to use PAT services and equipped with the skills to use penicillins appropriately following a negative allergy test result.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review

          Background Rapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice? Methods This rapid review utilised systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol including clear inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015998). A comprehensive search strategy was used, including published and grey literature, written in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish, from 2004 onwards. Eleven databases and two websites were searched. Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. A narrative summary of the results is presented. Results Five systematic reviews and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) that investigated methodologies for rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. None of the systematic reviews were of sufficient quality to allow firm conclusions to be made. Thus, the findings need to be treated with caution. There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting rapid reviews. While a wide range of ‘shortcuts’ are used to make rapid reviews faster than a full systematic review, the included studies found little empirical evidence of their impact on the conclusions of either rapid or systematic reviews. There is some evidence from the included RCT (that had a low risk of bias) that rapid reviews may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence for decision makers. Conclusions Greater care needs to be taken in improving the transparency of the methods used in rapid review products. There is no evidence available to suggest that rapid reviews should not be done or that they are misleading in any way. We offer an improved definition of rapid reviews to guide future research as well as clearer guidance for policy and practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical outcomes following inpatient penicillin allergy testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

            A documented penicillin allergy is associated with increased morbidity including length of hospital stay and an increased incidence of resistant infections attributed to use of broader-spectrum antibiotics. The aim of the systematic review was to identify whether inpatient penicillin allergy testing affected clinical outcomes during hospitalization.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of an antimicrobial allergy label in the medical record on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients.

              To determine the impact of having an antimicrobial allergy label in the medical record on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Antibiotics (Basel)
                Antibiotics (Basel)
                antibiotics
                Antibiotics
                MDPI
                2079-6382
                06 August 2018
                September 2018
                : 7
                : 3
                : 71
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; christopher.butler@ 123456phc.ox.ac.uk (C.C.B.); sarah.tonkin-crine@ 123456ndm.ox.ac.uk (S.T.-C.)
                [2 ]Department of Primary and Interdisciplinary care, University of Antwerp, Campus “Drie Eiken”, Gebouw R, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 WILRIJK Antwerpen, Belgium; Sibyl.Anthierens@ 123456uantwerpen.be
                [3 ]Leeds Institute of Health Sciences’, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds LS2 9LU, UK; J.M.Wright@ 123456leeds.ac.uk (J.M.W.); N.Dracup@ 123456leeds.ac.uk (N.D.)
                [4 ]Dental Translational and Clinical Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds LS2 9LU, UK; S.Pavitt@ 123456leeds.ac.uk
                [5 ]Healthcare Associated Infection Group, University of Leeds and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS13EX, UK; J.Sandoe@ 123456leeds.ac.uk
                [6 ]NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: marta.wanat@ 123456phc.ox.ac.uk ; Tel.: +44-1865-617-935
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5239-0173
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9372-4654
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-1151
                Article
                antibiotics-07-00071
                10.3390/antibiotics7030071
                6164736
                30082596
                cbb7fa23-56f3-4936-8bb0-28014a8ae061
                © 2018 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 21 June 2018
                : 31 July 2018
                Categories
                Review

                penicillin allergy,antibiotic stewardship,prescribing,antibiotic resistance

                Comments

                Comment on this article