ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a process evaluation, the patient experience.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies to Increase Equitable Access to Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Interactions: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 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
- Patients' experiences of penicillin allergy evaluation: a qualitative study.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Penicillin allergy (penA) records are common, but true penA is rare. PenA records are associated with broad spectrum antibiotic prescribing and negative patient outcomes. We developed a behavioural intervention package to support inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) delivered by a multi-profession non-allergist workforce to remove incorrect penA records from medical and surgical adult inpatients in a UK hospital. Aims: To explore the experiences, beliefs and concerns of patients who had been offered PADL. Methods: Semi-structured interviews to explore the views of patients admitted to a medical or surgical ward with a penA record and offered PADL between June 2024 and October 2024. Inductive reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Twenty patients were interviewed. Patients that believed their penA to be incorrect and those that described their index reaction as mild were more likely to agree to testing. Patients considered hospital a safe place to be tested. Some patients thought being acutely unwell was not a barrier to testing, whereas others preferred an outpatient setting once discharged from hospital. De-labelled patients described having a good explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL, were grateful for the opportunity and trusted the healthcare worker and the PADL process. Conclusion: PADL was well accepted by patients who described receiving a good explanation of the PADL process. Index reactions perceived as low severity (e.g. non-severe rashes) and/or doubtful of their penA (e.g. unaware they had a penA record) were more likely to accept PADL. Some who declined inpatient PADL would consider outpatient testing once recovered from their acute illness.
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.