Developing and disseminating an electronic penicillin allergy de-labelling tool using the model for improvement framework.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI:10.1186/s13223-024-00942-3
Sujen Saravanabavan, Patrick McKernan, Scott Cameron, Natasha Kwan, Kristopher T Kang, Ashley Roberts, Roxane Carr, Raymond Mak, Chelsea Elwood, Vanessa Paquette, Rochelle Stimpson, Bethina Abrahams, Edmond S Chan, Kathryn Slayter, Alicia Rahier, Irina Sainchuk, Sharla Olsen, Melissa Kucey, Jinan Shamseddine, Zahir Osman Eltahir Babiker, Tiffany Wong
{"title":"Developing and disseminating an electronic penicillin allergy de-labelling tool using the model for improvement framework.","authors":"Sujen Saravanabavan, Patrick McKernan, Scott Cameron, Natasha Kwan, Kristopher T Kang, Ashley Roberts, Roxane Carr, Raymond Mak, Chelsea Elwood, Vanessa Paquette, Rochelle Stimpson, Bethina Abrahams, Edmond S Chan, Kathryn Slayter, Alicia Rahier, Irina Sainchuk, Sharla Olsen, Melissa Kucey, Jinan Shamseddine, Zahir Osman Eltahir Babiker, Tiffany Wong","doi":"10.1186/s13223-024-00942-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>50.4% 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51302,"journal":{"name":"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology","volume":"20 1","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11668003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00942-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many 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.

Methods: A 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.

Results: 50.4% 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.

Conclusion: Our 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用改进框架模型开发和传播青霉素过敏电子去标签工具。
背景:尽管有充足的安全性数据,但许多临床医生对青霉素过敏脱标感到不舒服。护理点工具有效地支持提供者去标签。本研究的目标是到2023年2月将打算进行青霉素口服注射的提供者数量增加15%。方法:将经过验证的去标签算法转换为电子护理点工具,并分发给八家医疗机构。应用“改善模式架构”,我们进行了三个PDSA周期,分析收集的数据和完成的调查,以实施改革。收集了打算进行口腔挑战的提供者的数量,工具的使用情况以及对工具感到满意并对其对患者进行风险分层的能力充满信心的临床医生的数量。结果:50.4%的提供者打算在版本1中给予口服青霉素,版本2改善到65.5%,代表15.1%的增长。使用该工具的版本1,每月平均有61.3次工具使用计数。73.1%的提供者对该工具感到满意,76.9%的人对其对患者进行风险分层的能力充满信心。使用该工具的版本2,在通过三个PDSA周期实现更改之后,每月使用次数增加到平均98.6。此外,100.0%的提供者对该工具感到满意,98.1%的人对该工具对患者进行风险分层的能力充满信心。结论:我们的质量改进方法表明,打算进行口服挑战并对青霉素过敏去标签工具的风险分层能力感到满意和信心的提供者百分比有所提高。电子工具应进一步纳入机构青霉素去标签协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
96
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology (AACI), the official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI), is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention and treatment of allergic and immunologic disease. By offering a high-visibility forum for new insights and discussions, AACI provides a platform for the dissemination of allergy and clinical immunology research and reviews amongst allergists, pulmonologists, immunologists and other physicians, healthcare workers, medical students and the public worldwide. AACI reports on basic research and clinically applied studies in the following areas and other related topics: asthma and occupational lung disease, rhinoconjunctivitis and rhinosinusitis, drug hypersensitivity, allergic skin diseases, urticaria and angioedema, venom hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and food allergy, immunotherapy, immune modulators and biologics, immune deficiency and autoimmunity, T cell and B cell functions, regulatory T cells, natural killer cells, mast cell and eosinophil functions, complement abnormalities.
期刊最新文献
Technical validation of controlled exposure to cat dander in the specialized particulate control environmental exposure unit (SPaC-EEU). Secondary Immunodeficiency. This supplement is dedicated to the late Dr. Richard Warrington. Cost-effectiveness of watchful waiting versus immediate emergency department transfer after epinephrine autoinjector use in Canada. Drug allergy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1