ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Assessing a penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a process evaluation reporting healthcare workers' experiences.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
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 and objectives: Penicillin allergy (penA) records prevent first-line penicillin antibiotic use, but more than 90% are incorrect after formal testing and can be removed ('de-labelled'). We developed an implementation intervention package that supports a multi-professional non-allergy workforce to deliver penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) in a UK hospital. To explore the experiences of doctors, nurses, pharmacists and medicines optimization pharmacy technicians (MOPTs) of the implementation intervention package. Methods: Process evaluation utilizing semi-structured interviews with doctors, nurses, pharmacists and MOPTs with a target sample size of 20. Inductive reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Fifteen interviews were conducted between 7 November 2024 and 25 March 2025 with six doctors, five pharmacists and four MOPTs. PADL aligned well with the medicine's reconciliation process, the process of accurately listing a person's current medicines, which meant it better aligned with pharmacists' and MOPTs' roles than doctors' roles. Healthcare worker (HCW) confidence to deliver PADL remained low among some doctors and pharmacists, but all reported that with time and support PADL would embed. Competing priorities in an inadequately resourced healthcare setting made PADL challenging. Professional bodies formally defining PADL as a core role for their HCWs would increase engagement with PADL. The PADL champion role was identified as key to the implementation of PADL. Conclusions: Competing priorities were limiting PADL engagement and as such PADL needs to be a core part of a HCW's role for it to be prioritized. The champion is required to support PADL as a shared responsibility and needs to be available until the process is embedded into ways of working.
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.