ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2024
Developing and disseminating an electronic penicillin allergy de-labelling tool using the model for improvement framework.
Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Insights Into Immunomodulatory Strategies for Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: An EAACI Task Force Report.Clinical and translational allergy · 2026Review
- Using the Electronic Health Record to Facilitate Drug Allergy Delabeling.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany clinicians feel uncomfortable with de-labelling penicillin allergies despite ample safety data. Point of care tools effectively support providers with de-labelling. This study's objective was to increase the number of providers intending to pursue a penicillin oral challenge by 15% by February 2023.
methodsA validated de-labelling algorithm was translated into an electronic point of care tool and disseminated to eight healthcare institutions. Applying the Model for Improvement Framework, three PDSA cycles were conducted, where collected data and completed surveys were analysed to implement changes. Number of providers intending to pursue an oral challenge, tool usage as well as number of clinicians who felt satisfied with the tool and felt confident in its ability to risk-stratify patients was collected.
results50.4% of providers intended to give an oral challenge of penicillin with version 1, which improved to 65.5% with version 2, representing a 15.1% increase. With version 1 of the tool, there was an average of 61.3 counts of tool usage per month. 73.1% of providers felt satisfied with the tool and 76.9% felt confident in its ability to risk-stratify patients. With version 2 of the tool, after implementing changes through three PDSA cycles, monthly usage counts increased to an average of 98.6. Furthermore, 100.0% of providers felt satisfied with the tool and 98.1% felt confident with the tool's ability to risk-stratify patients.
conclusionOur quality improvement approach demonstrated improvement in the percentage of providers that intended to pursue an oral challenge and felt satisfied and confident in the risk-stratification capabilities of penicillin allergy de-labelling tool. Electronic tools should be further incorporated into institutional penicillin de-labelling protocols.
Indexed as
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.