RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship programme-led inpatient beta-lactam allergy de-labelling programme using a direct oral provocation test (OPT). DESIGN: One-year quality improvement study using a before-after design. SETTING: Free-standing tertiary care paediatric hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with a reported beta-lactam allergy admitted to the paediatric medicine inpatient unit. INTERVENTIONS: Following standardised assessment and risk stratification of reported symptoms, patients with a low-risk history were offered an OPT. Beta-lactam allergy labels were removed if a reported history was considered non-allergic or after successful OPT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Removal of inappropriate beta-lactam allergy labels. RESULTS: 80 patients with 85 reported beta-lactam allergies were assessed. Median age was 8.1 years (IQR 4.8-12.9) and 34 (42%) were female. The majority (n=55, 69%) had an underlying medical condition. Amoxicillin was the most reported allergy (n=25, 29%). Reported reactions were primarily dermatological (n=65, 77%). Half of participants (n=40) were ineligible for OPT, with equal proportions due to clinical reasons or the nature of the reported reaction. Of the 40 eligible patients, 28 patients (70%) were de-labelled either by history alone (n=10) or OPT (n=18). All OPTs were successful. De-labelling allowed five additional patients (11% of those receiving antibiotics) to receive the preferred beta-lactam. Including patients who were subsequently assessed in the allergy clinic, almost half of all evaluated patients were de-labelled (n=37, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: An antimicrobial stewardship programme-led programme using a direct OPT was feasible and safe for expanding beta-lactam allergy de-labelling to paediatric patients admitted to the paediatric medicine inpatient unit.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The performance of bowel preparation (BP) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) is unknown. AIMS: To evaluate the operating properties of instruments used to assess BP quality in patients with CD. METHODS: We used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, modified Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Food and Drug Administration Bowel Cleansing Assessment Scale (BCAS), and a 100-mm visual analogue scale of bowel cleanliness to assess BP quality in 50 videos from 40 patients with CD. We assessed endoscopic activity with the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD). Assessments were on endoscope insertion and withdrawal. Reliability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We assessed validity by within-patient correlation between instruments and the visual analogue scale using mixed-effect models. The correlation between BP quality and SES-SD scores was assessed using Spearman's rho. RESULTS: Inter- and intra-rater reliability for all BP quality instruments was substantial (ICC ≥0.61) except for the Food and Drug Administration BCAS on insertion (inter-rater reliability ICC ≥0.41). The visual analogue scale had substantial inter- and almost perfect (ICC ≥0.81) intra-rater reliability. Correlation coefficients for the validity of the instruments exceeded 0.58. BP quality and endoscopic disease activity scores in the colon were negatively correlated. CONCLUSION: Most existing instruments reliably assess BP quality in patients with CD. These results support the use of these instruments in clinical practice, provide a framework for scoring BP quality in CD clinical trials, and support evaluation of novel BP agents in patients with CD.