Search

Background: Allergy to opioids is the second most common drug allergy label in electronic health records (EHR). Adverse drug reactions (ADR) to opioids cause significant morbidity and contribute to healthcare costs, while incorrect opioid allergy labels may unnecessarily complicate patient management. Aims: To examine the documentation of opioid ADR in a large‐scale hospital‐based EHR. Methods: A cross‐sectional retrospective review of EHR documentation of opioid ADR at four public hospitals in South Australia was conducted. Data were extracted from all ADR entries including the reported allergen, ADR category (allergy or intolerance) and reaction details. Expert criteria were used to determine consistency of ADR categorisation as allergy or intolerance. Results: Of 86 727 unique ADR reports, there were 13 781 ADR to opioids with most being entered as allergy (n = 8913, 64.7%) rather than intolerance (n = 4868, 35.3%). The most commonly documented reactions were nausea/vomiting (n = 3912, 28%), rash (n = 647, 5%), itch (n = 642, 5%) and hallucinations (n = 527, 4%). There were 362 (3%) ADR labels of anaphylaxis. Of those ADR containing a reaction description (n = 11 868), 89% of reports entered as allergy had a reaction description that was consistent with intolerance and 8% of the entered intolerances had descriptions consistent with allergy when assessed using predefined criteria. Conclusions: This large EHR‐based study demonstrates the high rate of opioid ADR labels in EHR. The majority of these labels were for symptoms suggestive of pharmacological intolerance. Reactions consistent with true allergy were uncommon. Systematic review of ADR by a dedicated clinical service would improve the accuracy of documentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Australia, 243 000 individuals live in approximately 2700 residential aged care facilities yearly. In 2019, a National Aged Care Mandatory Quality Indicator programme (QI programme) was implemented to monitor the quality and safety of care in facilities. Aim: To examine the validity of the QI programme indicators using explicit measure review criteria. Methods: The QI programme manual and reports were reviewed. A modified American College of Physicians Measure Review Criteria was employed to examine the QI programme's eight indicators. Five authors rated each indicator on importance, appropriateness, clinical evidence, specifications and feasibility using a nine‐point scale. A median score of 1–3 was considered to not meet criteria, 4–6 to meet some criteria and 7–9 to meet criteria. Results: All indicators, except polypharmacy, met criteria (median scores = 7–9) for importance, appropriateness and clinical evidence. Polypharmacy met some criteria for importance (median = 6, range 2–8), appropriateness (median = 5, range 2–8) and clinical evidence (median = 6, range 3–8). Pressure injury, physical restraints, significant unplanned weight loss, consecutive unplanned weight loss, falls and polypharmacy indicators met some criteria for specifications validity (all median scores = 5) and feasibility and applicability (median scores = 4 to 6). Antipsychotic use and falls resulting in major injury met some criteria for specifications (median = 6–7, range 4–8) and met criteria for feasibility and applicability (median = 7, range 4–8). Conclusions: Australia's National QI programme is a major stride towards a culture of quality promotion, improvement and transparency. Measures' specifications, feasibility and applicability could be improved to ensure the programme delivers on its intended purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The majority of patients with penicillin allergy labels tolerate penicillins. Inappropriate avoidance of penicillin is associated with increased hospitalisation, infections and healthcare costs. Aims To examine the documentation of penicillin adverse drug reactions ( ADR) in a large-scale hospital-based electronic health record. Methods Penicillin ADR were extracted from 96 708 patient records in the Enterprise Patient Administration System in South Australia. Expert criteria were used to determine consistency of ADR entry and suitability for further evaluation. Results Of 43 011 unique ADR reports, there were 5023 ADR to penicillins with most being entered as allergy ( n = 4773, 95.0%) rather than intolerance ( n = 250, 5.0%). A significant proportion did not include a reaction description ( n = 1052, 20.9%). Using pre-set criteria, 10.1% of reports entered as allergy had a reaction description that was consistent with intolerance and 31.0% of the entered intolerances had descriptions consistent with allergy. Virtually all ADR ( n = 4979, 99.1%) were appropriate for further evaluation by history taking or immunological testing and half (50.7%, n = 2549) had documented reactions suggesting low-risk of penicillin allergy. Conclusion The frequency of penicillin allergy label in this data set is consistent with the known overdiagnosis of penicillin allergy in the hospital population. ADR documentation was poor with incomplete entries and inconsistent categorisation. The concepts of allergy and intolerance for ADR classification, whilst mechanistically valid, may not be useful at the point of ADR entry by generalist clinicians. Systematic evaluation of reported ADR is needed to improve the quality of information for future prescribers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "Drug Allergy Reports on Medicalalert ® Devices," by Caroline Foreman and colleagues is presented.