Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy labels in a UK hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Penicillin allergy records are common, often incorrect and are associated with broad spectrum antibiotic use. We piloted a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary penicillin allergy de-labelling daily ward round to determine the opportunity for penicillin allergy de-labelling in a UK hospital. METHODS: A daily ward round, delivered by antibiotic pharmacists or junior doctors, identified adult medical and surgical patients between 7 November 2022 and 31 January 2023 with a penicillin allergy record that was preventing first-line penicillin use. An allergy history was taken before risk stratifying likelihood of future harm from penicillin re-exposure and an allergy testing method was determined (direct de-label on history alone or after direct drug provocation testing). After successful allergy de-label, the antibiotic was switched to a penicillin antibiotic. RESULTS: Of 7214 inpatients during the study period, 1133 (15.7%) had a penicillin allergy record. Of 285 allergy histories taken, 105 (36.8%) met high-risk criteria, 45 (15.8%) met low-risk criteria eligible for direct de-label and 73 (25.6%) met criteria eligible for direct drug provocation testing. We were unable to obtain a history for 61 (21.4%) patients. Of 45 low-risk patients eligible for direct de-label, 40 (88.9%) were de-labelled of whom 24 (53.3%) were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Of 73 patients with a low-risk allergy history eligible for direct drug provocation testing, 16 (21.9%) received direct drug provocation testing, of whom 9 were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Two direct de-label patients experienced harm (thrush within 5 days and delayed skin reaction after day 5); none of the direct drug provocation testing patients had a reaction by day 5. The switches resulted in reduced alternative antibiotic use by 173 Daily Defined Doses (DDDs). DISCUSSION: Penicillin allergy de-labelling patient pathway delivered by pharmacists and junior doctors was safe and effective and well accepted by patients and the wider clinical teams.

Identification of Intervention Opportunities through Assessment of the Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescribing in Surgical Patients in a UK Hospital Using a National Audit Tool: A Single Centre Retrospective Audit.

Identifying opportunities to safely reduce antibiotic prescribing is necessary for prescribers and antibiotic stewardship teams to minimise unwarranted antibiotic use. We aimed to quantify excess antibiotic use in General Surgery. We retrospectively audited the antibiotic prescribing for patients discharged from the General Surgery specialty in an acute hospital in the south-west of England for one month using an audit tool developed by Public Health England. The appropriateness of prescribing was determined for each patient at three antibiotic decision time-points: at initiation, the pre-72-hour antibiotic review, and treatment duration. Two infection specialists and a general surgeon reviewed each patient. Indication and excess days of therapy (DOTs) were calculated at each decision time-point and expressed as a proportion of total DOTs. Eighty-six patients were prescribed 1162 DOTs; 192 (16.5%) excess DOTs were prescribed in 38 patients (44%), with zero excess days identified in the remaining 48 patients (56%). Seventy-five of 192 (39%) excess DOTs occurred at initiation; 55/192 (29%) after the pre-72-hour antibiotic review; and 62/192 (32%) due to protracted antibiotic courses. There was concordance between the general surgeon and infection specialist for most apportioned excess DOTs. However, the surgeon apportioned fewer excess DOTs 160/1162 (13.8%). Overall IV antibiotics accounted for 53.4% of total DOTs. Seventy-two of 86 (83.7%) patients received 620 intravenous DOTs; of these, 79 (12.7%) IV DOTS were unnecessary. We have identified excess antibiotic prescribing in General surgery with comparable excess DOTs at all three time-points.