Britta K Sundquist1, Brady J Bowen2, Uwa Otabor2, Jocelyn Celestin1, Paul C Sorum2. 1. a Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology , Albany Medical College , Albany , NY , USA. 2. b Department of Medicine, Division of Internal Medicine/Pediatrics , Albany Medical College , Albany , NY , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To promote penicillin allergy testing in an outpatient setting in patients labeled as penicillin allergic, to determine the number of those who are truly allergic, evaluate patient satisfaction with the testing, and educate both patients and clinicians about testing. METHODS: Patients with a history of penicillin allergy listed in their EHR were screened and recruited by their primary care office and referred for penicillin allergy testing. The results of allergy testing and patient satisfaction after testing were the main outcomes. We also surveyed the primary care physicians about perceived barriers to recruitment. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were recruited, although only 37 actually underwent testing. None of these 37 had a positive skin test, and none of 36 had a positive oral challenge (1 refused it). Following testing, 2 patients (5%) had subjective reactions within 24 h. Thirty-one patients (84%) responded to a post-testing follow-up questionnaire; 3 (10%) were subsequently treated with a beta-lactam, and all reported that testing provided important information to their medical history. Providers identified time constraints, either their or their patients lack of time, as the major barrier to recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Penicillin allergy testing safely evaluates patients labeled as penicillin allergic. It is well tolerated, and embraced by the patients who undergo testing. In our study, none of the patients tested had an allergic reaction, but we identified multiple barriers to developing a protocol for testing patients from the primary care setting.
OBJECTIVES: To promote penicillinallergy testing in an outpatient setting in patients labeled as penicillin allergic, to determine the number of those who are truly allergic, evaluate patient satisfaction with the testing, and educate both patients and clinicians about testing. METHODS:Patients with a history of penicillinallergy listed in their EHR were screened and recruited by their primary care office and referred for penicillinallergy testing. The results of allergy testing and patient satisfaction after testing were the main outcomes. We also surveyed the primary care physicians about perceived barriers to recruitment. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were recruited, although only 37 actually underwent testing. None of these 37 had a positive skin test, and none of 36 had a positive oral challenge (1 refused it). Following testing, 2 patients (5%) had subjective reactions within 24 h. Thirty-one patients (84%) responded to a post-testing follow-up questionnaire; 3 (10%) were subsequently treated with a beta-lactam, and all reported that testing provided important information to their medical history. Providers identified time constraints, either their or their patients lack of time, as the major barrier to recruitment. CONCLUSIONS:Penicillinallergy testing safely evaluates patients labeled as penicillin allergic. It is well tolerated, and embraced by the patients who undergo testing. In our study, none of the patients tested had an allergic reaction, but we identified multiple barriers to developing a protocol for testing patients from the primary care setting.
Entities:
Keywords:
Allergy; health care costs; patient satisfaction; penicillin; quality improvement
Authors: Mary L Staicu; David Vyles; Erica S Shenoy; Cosby A Stone; Taylor Banks; Kristin S Alvarez; Kimberly G Blumenthal Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2020-10
Authors: Marta Wanat; Sibyl Anthierens; Christopher C Butler; Judy M Wright; Naila Dracup; Sue H Pavitt; Jonathan A T Sandoe; Sarah Tonkin-Crine Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2018-08-06
Authors: Marta Santillo; Marta Wanat; Mina Davoudianfar; Emily Bongard; Sinisa Savic; Louise Savic; Catherine Porter; Joanne Fielding; Christopher C Butler; Sue Pavitt; Jonathan Sandoe; Sarah Tonkin-Crine Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 2.692