Search

IntroductionPatient-reported antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common. These labels have been demonstrated to have a negative impact on use of appropriate antibiotics and patient-related health outcomes. These patients are more likely to receive suboptimal antibiotics, have increased rates of surgical site infections and are more likely to be colonised with multidrug-resistant organisms. Increasing recognition that antibiotic allergy forms a key part of good antimicrobial stewardship has led to calls for greater access to antibiotic allergy assessment.PREPARE is a pilot randomised controlled trial of beta-lactam allergy assessment and point of care delabelling in perioperative patients utilising a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool that has been repurposed into a smartphone application. The aim of the study is to assess the feasibility and safety of this approach in the perioperative outpatient setting.Methods and analysisAdult participants requiring elective surgery and are likely to require prophylactic intravenous antibiotics will be recruited. During the intervention phase, participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arm, with control patients receiving usual standard of care. Those randomised to intervention undertake a risk assessment via the smartphone application, with those deemed low risk proceeding to direct oral provocation with either a penicillin or cephalosporin. Study outcomes will be evaluated in the postintervention phase, 30 and 90 days after surgery.Feasibility of intervention delivery and recruitment will be reported as proportions with respective 95% CIs. Participants who experience an antibiotic adverse event will be reported by group with respective 95% CIs and compared using modified Poisson regression model with robust SE estimation.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has received approval from the Austin Health human research and ethics committee, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia (HREC/17/Austin/575). Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentation at international conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12620001295932.

BackgroundManaging medications inappropriately when patients have oral intake restrictions can cause patient harm. This study evaluated the impact of a medication policy separating fasting from nil by mouth with respect to giving oral medications in patients fasting before a diagnostic or interventional procedure.MethodsThe policy stipulated that ‘fasting’ means oral medications should be given with a sip of water up to 1 hour before a procedure, unless there is a clinical reason to withhold, while ‘nil by mouth’ means nothing to be given orally, including medications.The policy was implemented in Surgical areas in February 2015 and Medical areas in March 2015 at a tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and included bedside signs, clinical champions and education sessions.The study was conducted in 2020. Admission and medication records were matched for non-elective procedure patients from January 2014 to May 2016. The monthly proportion of doses omitted inappropriately and overall omissions pre/post-policy implementation were compared using segmented regression.ResultsPre-implementation, the proportion of doses withheld inappropriately and total omissions in medical areas were 18.1% and 28.0%, respectively. Post-implementation, an absolute reduction of 13.4% (95% CI 9.0% to 17.7%) and 11.1% (95% CI 2.6% to 19.6%), respectively, was seen. Post-implementation linear trend showed a 0.3% (95% CI 0.0% to 0.6%) increase in inappropriate omissions but not overall omissions.In Surgical areas, pre-implementation proportions for inappropriate and overall omissions were lower than Medical areas’. Post-implementation, there was an absolute decrease in doses withheld inappropriately (8.3%, 95% CI 0.8% to 15.7%, from 11.9% pre-implementation) but not total omissions.ConclusionsDistinguishing fasting from nil by mouth appeared to provide clarity for some staff: a reduction in inappropriate omissions was seen post-implementation. Although the small increase in post-implementation linear trend for inappropriate omissions in Medical areas suggests sustainability issues, total omissions were sustained. The policy’s concepts require verification beyond our institution.