ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2024
Experiences of an inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling pathway: capturing the patient voice.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sustaining accurate penicillin allergy labels through electronic health record interoperability: a cross-sectional observational follow-up study 3 years after initial penicillin allergy evaluation.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Outcomes of a penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a prospective, single centre, type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study evaluated using mixed methods.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- What are patients' and healthcare professionals' views on managing penicillin allergy? A qualitative evidence synthesis.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Widening access to penicillin allergy assessment in the United Kingdom-a proposed implementation plan for the National Health Service (NHS).JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Article
- Patients' acceptance of a penicillin allergy de-labelling programme in primary care: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Penicillin Allergy in China: Consequences of Inappropriate Skin Testing Practices and Policies.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025Review
- Penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a process evaluation, the patient experience.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- Article
- "What if the patient has a severe reaction, and it is my fault?" A qualitative study exploring factors for sustainable implementation of penicillin allergy delabelling.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-allergist-delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) is supported by UK and other national guidelines but is not yet routine practice in UK hospitals. Those who have undergone PADL report high rates of acceptance, but it is unknown why some continue to avoid penicillin, and why some decline testing. Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients recently approached for penicillin allergy (penA) assessment and de-label by non-allergists in a UK hospital to determine the barriers and enablers to patient acceptance of PADL. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who were penA assessed and de-labelled during an inpatient stay between November 2022 and January 2023. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Nineteen patients were interviewed. Patients were largely unaware of the negative impact of penA on their healthcare. Patients had differing views on challenging their penA status while they were acutely unwell, some agreeing that it is the right time to test and others not. Patients declined testing because they felt they were at higher potential risk because they were older or had multiple comorbidities. Some patients who declined testing felt they would have been persuaded if they had received a better explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL. Conclusions: Patients who were successfully de-labelled were positive about the experience. Those who declined testing did so for a variety of reasons including frailty/comorbidities or a fear of testing whilst unwell. Patients highlighted the importance of good communication about the personalized risks and benefits of testing.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.