Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40809340›Full record

ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025

Penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a process evaluation, the patient experience.

Neil Powell, Mathew Upton, Bridie Kent, Jonathan A T Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Neil PowellPharmacy Department, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro TR1 3LJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6113-9810
Mathew UptonSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4287-6396
Bridie KentSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Jonathan A T SandoeLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0193-8677
Sarah Tonkin-CrineNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-1151

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40809340
PMCPMC12344413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.