A multicentre observational study to investigate feasibility of a direct oral penicillin challenge in de-labelling 'low risk' patients with penicillin allergy by non-allergy healthcare professionals (SPACE study): Implications for healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC. RESULTS: N = 2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk = 155; high risk = 104). One hundred and twenty-six low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p < 0.001) and 5.53 (p < 0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors. INTERPRETATION: DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings.

The role of a clinical pharmacist in spurious Penicillin allergy: a narrative review.

Background A label of penicillin allergy is held by 6-10% of the general population and 15-20% of inpatients. > 90% of these labels are found to be spurious after formal allergy assessment. Carrying an unnecessary label of penicillin allergy is not benign. Such patients may receive second line, more expensive antibiotics, representing a significant impediment to antimicrobial stewardship. Aim of the review To (a) Explain the burden of spurious penicillin allergy, and evaluate the safety of direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients (b) appraise the place for a clinical pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling programme. Method Narrative review. Search engines: PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane reviews. Search criteria: English language; search terms: penicillin allergy, antimicrobial stewardship, antimicrobial resistance, clostridium difficile, vancomycin resistant enterococci, risk stratification, clinical pharmacist and direct oral provocation test Results Penicillin allergy labels are associated with: longer hospital stay, higher readmission rates, enhanced risk of surgical site infections, risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, a delay in the first dose of an antibiotic in sepsis and higher healthcare costs. A direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients has proven to be safe. Discussion Recent studies including those led by a clinical pharmacist have demonstrated safety of a direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients. This intervention needs validation within individual health services. Conclusion Direct oral penicillin challenge reduces the adverse impact of spurious penicillin allergy. A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling program needs further validation in prospective multi-centre studies.

Developing a Process for Criteria-Led Discharge: Selection of Patients for Efficient and Effective Discharge (SPEED).

BACKGROUND: Criteria-led discharge (CLD) is an approach for maximizing bed capacity by expediting patient discharge. PROBLEM: In acute medicine settings, patients commonly have multiple medical problems, which render single care pathway and clinical protocols of limited use. CLD offers potential, but little evidence exists about how to best implement it in these contexts. APPROACH: Retrospective case note analysis generated characteristics from patients' discharge plans to design a criterion-based framework to aid patient selection for CLD. These criteria were hypothetically tested on patient case notes (n = 50). OUTCOMES: CLD was identified as suitable (n = 27) and unsuitable (n = 23) from 50 case notes. Interrater agreement was 86% between 3 reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: This review has provided greater understanding of the complexity of discharge in acute medicine settings. Implementing CLD to optimize timeliness of patient discharge might offer a solution for selected patients.