住院病人青霉素过敏脱敏路径的经验:捕捉病人的声音。

IF 3.7 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance Pub Date : 2024-02-09 eCollection Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1093/jacamr/dlae020
Neil Powell, Mathew Upton, Bridie Kent, Jonathan Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine
{"title":"住院病人青霉素过敏脱敏路径的经验:捕捉病人的声音。","authors":"Neil Powell, Mathew Upton, Bridie Kent, Jonathan Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine","doi":"10.1093/jacamr/dlae020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-allergist-delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) is supported by UK and other national guidelines but is not yet routine practice in UK hospitals. Those who have undergone PADL report high rates of acceptance, but it is unknown why some continue to avoid penicillin, and why some decline testing.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To explore the experiences of patients recently approached for penicillin allergy (penA) assessment and de-label by non-allergists in a UK hospital to determine the barriers and enablers to patient acceptance of PADL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who were penA assessed and de-labelled during an inpatient stay between November 2022 and January 2023. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen patients were interviewed. Patients were largely unaware of the negative impact of penA on their healthcare. Patients had differing views on challenging their penA status while they were acutely unwell, some agreeing that it is the right time to test and others not. Patients declined testing because they felt they were at higher potential risk because they were older or had multiple comorbidities. Some patients who declined testing felt they would have been persuaded if they had received a better explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who were successfully de-labelled were positive about the experience. Those who declined testing did so for a variety of reasons including frailty/comorbidities or a fear of testing whilst unwell. Patients highlighted the importance of good communication about the personalized risks and benefits of testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":14594,"journal":{"name":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","volume":"6 1","pages":"dlae020"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10854212/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experiences of an inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling pathway: capturing the patient voice.\",\"authors\":\"Neil Powell, Mathew Upton, Bridie Kent, Jonathan Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jacamr/dlae020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-allergist-delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) is supported by UK and other national guidelines but is not yet routine practice in UK hospitals. Those who have undergone PADL report high rates of acceptance, but it is unknown why some continue to avoid penicillin, and why some decline testing.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To explore the experiences of patients recently approached for penicillin allergy (penA) assessment and de-label by non-allergists in a UK hospital to determine the barriers and enablers to patient acceptance of PADL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who were penA assessed and de-labelled during an inpatient stay between November 2022 and January 2023. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen patients were interviewed. Patients were largely unaware of the negative impact of penA on their healthcare. Patients had differing views on challenging their penA status while they were acutely unwell, some agreeing that it is the right time to test and others not. Patients declined testing because they felt they were at higher potential risk because they were older or had multiple comorbidities. Some patients who declined testing felt they would have been persuaded if they had received a better explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who were successfully de-labelled were positive about the experience. Those who declined testing did so for a variety of reasons including frailty/comorbidities or a fear of testing whilst unwell. Patients highlighted the importance of good communication about the personalized risks and benefits of testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"dlae020\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10854212/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlae020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlae020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:英国和其他国家的指南都支持非过敏学专家提供的青霉素过敏去标签化(PADL),但这还不是英国医院的常规做法。接受过 PADL 的患者表示接受率很高,但不知道为什么有些人继续回避青霉素,也不知道为什么有些人拒绝接受检测:探讨英国一家医院的非过敏专科医生最近接触的青霉素过敏(penA)评估和去标签患者的经历,以确定患者接受 PADL 的障碍和促进因素:定性研究:采用半结构式访谈法,对 2022 年 11 月至 2023 年 1 月期间住院期间接受 penA 评估和去标记的患者进行访谈。结果:19 名患者接受了访谈:共访谈了 19 名患者。患者大多没有意识到 penA 对其医疗保健的负面影响。患者对在身体严重不适的情况下质疑自己的 penA 状态持有不同的观点,一些患者认为这是检测的正确时机,而另一些患者则不同意。患者之所以拒绝检测,是因为他们认为自己年龄较大或患有多种并发症,潜在风险较高。一些拒绝检测的患者认为,如果能更好地解释 PADL 的风险和益处,他们会被说服:结论:成功去除标签的患者对这次经历持肯定态度。拒绝接受检查的患者有多种原因,包括身体虚弱/合并症或害怕在身体不适的情况下接受检查。患者强调了就检测的个性化风险和益处进行良好沟通的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Experiences of an inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling pathway: capturing the patient voice.

Background: Non-allergist-delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) is supported by UK and other national guidelines but is not yet routine practice in UK hospitals. Those who have undergone PADL report high rates of acceptance, but it is unknown why some continue to avoid penicillin, and why some decline testing.

Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients recently approached for penicillin allergy (penA) assessment and de-label by non-allergists in a UK hospital to determine the barriers and enablers to patient acceptance of PADL.

Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who were penA assessed and de-labelled during an inpatient stay between November 2022 and January 2023. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results: Nineteen patients were interviewed. Patients were largely unaware of the negative impact of penA on their healthcare. Patients had differing views on challenging their penA status while they were acutely unwell, some agreeing that it is the right time to test and others not. Patients declined testing because they felt they were at higher potential risk because they were older or had multiple comorbidities. Some patients who declined testing felt they would have been persuaded if they had received a better explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL.

Conclusions: Patients who were successfully de-labelled were positive about the experience. Those who declined testing did so for a variety of reasons including frailty/comorbidities or a fear of testing whilst unwell. Patients highlighted the importance of good communication about the personalized risks and benefits of testing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Nursing home nurses' opinion profiles on the potential evolution of their role in antimicrobial stewardship and associated factors: a national cross-sectional study in France. Clinical pharmacist-led antifungal drug utilization reviews in cancer care hospital: a prospective audit and feedback. State of the art of real-life concentration monitoring of rifampicin and its implementation contextualized in resource-limited settings: the Tanzanian case. Capturing the complexity of veterinarians' antibiotic prescribing practices in the livestock sector: a meta-ethnography across contexts: Veterinarians' antibiotic prescribing in different contexts. Development of a PCR assay for rapid and accurate detection of an emerging vanB Enterococcus faecium clone in the Capital Region of Denmark.
×
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