scholarly journals 1332. Single Dose Oral Amoxicillin Challenge is a Safe and Effective Strategy to Delabel Penicillin Allergies among Low Risk Hospitalized Children

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S677-S678
Author(s):  
Justin B Searns ◽  
Amy Stein ◽  
Christine MacBrayne ◽  
Tara Sarin ◽  
Taylor Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Oral Amoxicillin ◽  
Treatment Dose ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Drug Challenge

Abstract Background Over 90% of children with reported penicillin allergy can tolerate penicillin without incident. Developing effective and safe strategies to remove inappropriate penicillin allergies has the potential to improve care; however, guidance on how to identify, test, and delabel patients is limited. Methods In April 2019, Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHCO) implemented a penicillin allergy clinical pathway (CP) alongside a risk assessment tool to stratify patients based on allergic history (Figure 1). Patients at “no increased risk” were educated and delabeled without testing. Low risk patients were offered an oral amoxicillin drug challenge with close observation. A single, non-graded, treatment dose of amoxicillin (45 mg/kg, max dose 1000mg) was used for low risk patients, and no preceding allergic skin testing was performed. Patients with no signs or symptoms of allergic response 60 minutes after amoxicillin administration were delabeled. Children delabeled of penicillin allergies on the CHCO hospital medicine service were compared between the pre-CP (1/1/17-3/31/19) and post-CP (4/1/19-3/31/20) cohorts. Figure 1. Penicillin Allergy Risk Assessment Results Pre-CP, 683/10624 (6.4%) patients reported a penicillin allergy and 18/683 (2.6%) were delabeled by discharge. Post-CP, 345/6559 (5.3%) patients reported a penicillin allergy and 47/345 (13.6%) were delabeled by discharge (P-value < 0.0001, Figure 2). Among the 47 post-CP patients, 11 were delabeled by history alone, 19 underwent oral amoxicillin drug challenge per CP, and 17 received a different treatment dose penicillin per treatment team. Only one penicillin-exposed patients had a reaction. This patient developed a delayed, non-progressive rash and had penicillin allergy restored to their chart. No patient required emergency medical intervention, and none were “relabeled” penicillin allergic in the 6 months following discharge. Figure 2. Monthly Rate of Penicillin Allergic Patients Delabeled by Discharge Conclusion A drug challenge using a single non-graded dose of oral amoxicillin is a safe and effective strategy to delabel low risk children of inappropriate penicillin allergies when implemented alongside a risk assessment tool. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits of delabeling inappropriate penicillin allergies and to continue monitoring for adverse events. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Initial Experience in Predicting the Risk of Hospitalization of 496 Outpatients with COVID-19 Using a Telemedicine Risk Assessment Tool

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James B O'Keefe ◽  
Elizabeth J Tong ◽  
Thomas H Taylor ◽  
Ghazala D Datoo O'Keefe ◽  
David C Tong
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Tier 2 ◽  
Tier 1 ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Tier 3

Objective: To determine whether a risk prediction tool developed and implemented in March 2020 accurately predicts subsequent hospitalizations. Design: Retrospective cohort study, enrollment from March 24 to May 26, 2020 with follow-up calls until hospitalization or clinical improvement (final calls until June 19, 2020) Setting: Single center telemedicine program managing outpatients from a large medical system in Atlanta, Georgia Participants: 496 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in isolation at home. Exclusion criteria included: (1) hospitalization prior to telemedicine program enrollment, (2) immediate discharge with no follow-up calls due to resolution. Exposure: Acute COVID-19 illness Main Outcome and Measures: Hospitalization was the outcome. Days to hospitalization was the metric. Survival analysis using Cox regression was used to determine factors associated with hospitalization. Results: The risk-assessment rubric assigned 496 outpatients to risk tiers as follows: Tier 1, 237 (47.8%); Tier 2, 185 (37.3%); Tier 3, 74 (14.9%). Subsequent hospitalizations numbered 3 (1%), 15 (7%), and 17 (23%) and for Tiers 1-3, respectively. From a Cox regression model with age ≥ 60, gender, and self-reported obesity as covariates, the adjusted hazard ratios using Tier 1 as reference were: Tier 2 HR=3.74 (95% CI, 1.06-13.27; P=0.041); Tier 3 HR=10.87 (95% CI, 3.09-38.27; P<0.001). Tier was the strongest predictor of time to hospitalization. Conclusions and Relevance: A telemedicine risk assessment tool prospectively applied to an outpatient population with COVID-19 identified both low-risk and high-risk patients with better performance than individual risk factors alone. This approach may be appropriate for optimum allocation of resources.

Immunoscore clinical utility to identify good prognostic colon cancer stage II patients with high-risk clinico-pathological features for whom adjuvant treatment may be avoided.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 487-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Galon ◽  
Fabienne Hermitte ◽  
Bernhard Mlecnik ◽  
Florence Marliot ◽  
Carlo Bruno Bifulco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Tnm Classification ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Pathological Feature ◽  
Prognostic Features ◽  
Risk Patients

487 Background: Immunoscore Colon is an IVD test predicting the risk of relapse in early-stage colon cancer (CC) patients, by measuring the host immune response at the tumor site. It is a risk-assessment tool providing independent and superior prognostic value than the usual tumor risk parameters and is intended to be used as an adjunct to the TNM classification. Risk assessment is particularly important to decide when to propose an adjuvant (adj.) treatment for stage (St) II CC patients. High-risk stage II patients defined as those with poor prognostic features including T4, lymph nodes < 12, poor differentiation, VELIPI, bowel obstruction/perforation can be considered for adj. chemotherapy (CT). However, additional risk factors are needed to guide treatment decisions. Methods: A subgroup analysis was performed on the St II untreated patients (n = 1130) from the Immunoscore international validation study (Pagès The Lancet 2018). The high-risk patients (with at least 1 clinico-pathological high-risk feature) were classified in 2 categories using pre-defined cutoffs: Low Immunoscore versus High Immunoscore and their five-year time to recurrence (5Y TTR) was compared to the TTR of the low-risk patients (without any clinico-pathological high-risk feature). Results: Among the patients with high-risk features (n = 630), 438 (69.5%) had a High Immunoscore with a corresponding 5Y TTR of 87.4 (95% CI 83.9-91.0), statistically similar (logrank pv not stratified p > 0.42, wald pv stratified by center p > 0.20) to the TTR 89.1 (95% CI 86.1-92.1) observed for the 500 low-risk patients (with no clinico-pathological feature). Furthermore, 5Y TTR for these patients were statistically similar to those of St II patients with high-risk features and a High Immunoscore (n = 438), who received adj. CT (n = 162) (5Y TTR of 83.4 (95% CI 77.6-89.9). Conclusions: These data show that despite the presence of high-risk features that usually trigger adj. treatment, when not treated with CT, a significant part of these patients (69.5%) have a recurrence risk similar to the low risk patients. Therefore, the Immunoscore test could be a good tool for adj. treatment decision in St II patients.

O20 Quick, simple and just as effective—comparing pm: L3 ratio to NELA, P-POSSUM and NSQIP scores in assessing mortality risk for emergency laparotomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Y Ming ◽  
M Holmes ◽  
P Pockney ◽  
J Gani
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Emergency Laparotomy ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Acs Nsqip ◽  
Psoas Muscles ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Introduction Multiple tools (NELA, P-POSSUM, ACS-NSQIP) are available to assess mortality risks in patients requiring emergency laparotomy(1–3), but they are time-consuming to perform and have had limited uptake in routine clinical practice in many countries(4). Simpler measures, including psoas muscle: L3 vertebrae (PM: L3) ratio(5,6), may be useful alternates. This measure is quick to perform, requiring no special skills or equipment apart from basic CT viewing software. Method We performed an analysis on all patients in the Hunter Emergency Laparotomy Audit (HELA) database, from January 2016 to December 2017. HELA is a retrospective review of all emergency laparotomy undertaken in a discrete area in NSW, Australia. Patients with an available CT abdomen were included (N = 500/562). A single slice axial CT image at the L3 endplate level was analysed using ImageJ® software to measure the area of L3 and bilateral psoas muscles. This can be done using normal PACS software in routine practice. Result PM: L3 ratios in this cohort have a mean of 1.082 (95%CI 1.042–1.122; range 0.141–3.934). PM: L3 ratio is significantly lower (P &lt; 0.00001) in those patients who did not survive beyond 30 days (mean 0.865 [95% CI 0.746–0.984]) and 90 days (mean 0.888 [95%CI 0.768–1.008]) compared to patients that survived these periods (30 day mean 1.106 [95% vs. 1.033–1.179], 90 day mean 1.112 [95% CI 1.070–1.154]). These associations are similar to those calculated by established risk assessment models. Conclusion PM: L3 ratio is a reliable, quick and easy risk assessment tool to identify high risk patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Take-home Message PM: L3 ratio is a reliable, quick and easy risk assessment tool to identify high risk patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. It is comparable to NELA, P-POSSUM and ACS-NSQIP.

Hemorrhage Risk Assessment on Admission: Utility for Prediction of Maternal Morbidity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Homa K. Ahmadzia ◽  
Jaclyn M. Phillips ◽  
Rose Kleiman ◽  
Alexis C. Gimovsky ◽  
Susan Bathgate ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Maternal Morbidity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Maternal Outcomes ◽  
Hemorrhage Risk ◽  
Low Risk Women

Objective Hemorrhage is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality prompting creation of innovative risk assessment tools to identify patients at highest risk. We aimed to investigate the association of hemorrhage risk assessment with maternal morbidity and to evaluate maternal outcomes after implementation of the risk assessment across hospital sites. Study Design We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of a multicenter database including women admitted to labor and delivery from January 2015 to June 2018. The Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses risk assessment tool was used to categorize patients as low, medium, or high risk for hemorrhage. Multivariate logistic regression was used to describe the association between hemorrhage risk score and markers of maternal morbidity and evaluate maternal outcomes before and after standardized implementations of the risk assessment tool. Results In this study, 14,861 women were categorized as low risk (26%), 26,080 (46%) moderate risk, and 15,730 (28%) high risk (N = 56,671 births). For women with high-risk scores, the relative risk (RR) ratio compared with low-risk women was 4.9 (RR: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.2–7.4) for blood transfusion and 5.2 (RR: 95% CI: 4.6–5.9) for estimated blood loss (EBL) ≥ 1,000 mL. For the second objective, 110,633 women were available for pre- and postimplementation analyses (39,027 and 71,606, respectively). A 20% reduction in rates of blood transfusion (0.5–0.4%, p = 0.02) and EBL ≥ 1,000 mL (6.3–5.9%, p = 0.014) was observed between pre- and postimplementations of the admission hemorrhage risk assessment tool. Conclusion Women who were deemed high risk for hemorrhage using a hemorrhage risk assessment tool had five times higher risk for blood transfusion and EBL ≥ 1,000 mL compared with low-risk women. Given the low incidence of the outcomes explored, the hemorrhage risk assessment works moderately well to identify patients at risk for peripartum morbidity. Key Points

scholarly journals Current Practice of Hospital Acquired Thrombosis (HAT) Prevention in an Acute Hospital (a single centre cross sectional study)

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4459-4459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Muhammad Irfan Khan ◽  
Catriona O'Leary ◽  
Mary Ann Hayes ◽  
Patricia O'Flynn ◽  
Pauline Suzanne Chappell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Drug Prescription ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
High Risk Category

Abstract Background Evidence based consensus guidelines for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention are broadly accepted to be effective and safe for more than three decades (Clagett GP et al, 1992). However VTE continues to be associated with a major global burden of disease with 3.9 million cases of HAT during one year among 1.1 billion citizens of high income countries (Jha AK et al, 2013). Therefore prevention is the key to reduce death and disability resulting from VTE (Kahn S et al, Gould MK et al & Falck-Yitter Y et al, 2012). Ireland like many other countries has yet to implement a mandatory risk assessment tool and thromboprophylaxis (TP) policy nationally. Aims The aim of this study was to calculate the proportion of inpatients who had a VTE risk assessment performed and received appropriate TP in a large tertiary referral hospital. This information will be vital for baseline data for implementation of a new national policy for prevention of HAT. Methods This audit was performed at Cork University Hospital on 4 pre specified days between November 2014 to February 2015. All adult inpatients (Medical and Surgical) excluding maternity and psychiatric were included. Patients on therapeutic anticoagulation were also excluded. The patients' medical chart and drug prescription chart were reviewed to determine whether or not a VTE risk assessment was documented for each patient and if they had received appropriate TP. If no risk assessment had been performed, trained researchers applied the National Institute for health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines 92 (Jan 2010) for VTE risk assessment and prevention. Following the risk assessment patients were divided into three categories, high risk of VTE with low risk of bleeding; high risk of VTE with significant risk of bleeding and low risk of VTE. From this the proportion of patients in each group that received appropriate TP were calculated. Results A total of 1019 patients were enrolled the majority were medical patients 63.5% (n=648). The mean age of patients was 69 years. Females accounted for 52% of patients. Average length of hospitalisation for each patient at the time of the audit was 6 days (range 1-664 days). Overall, a formal TP risk assessment was documented in only 24% (n=244) of all charts reviewed however TP was prescribed in 43.2% (n=441) of patients. See table.Table 1.High Risk of VTE low risk of bleedingHigh risk of VTE significant risk of bleedingLow risk of VTENo. of pts80.3% (n=819)16.6% (n=170)2.9% (n=30)VTE risk assessment documented21.9% (n=180)28.2% (n=55)30% (n=9)Received TP46.3% (n=380)28.8% (n=49)40% (n=12) Within the high risk category patients, 64.3% (n=526) medical. TP was only administered to 46.3% (n=380) of patients in the high risk category. This was almost evenly distributed between surgical 50.1% (n=147) and medical 43.4% (n=233) patients. Conclusion This audit was done as the initial step to develop a national policy to prevent HAT. As suspected, this audit highlights that a large proportion of hospitalised patients, both surgical and medical, continue to be at high risk for VTE despite the availability of preventative measures. There is clear illustration of under prescription of safe, effective and recommended means of VTE prevention. The current overall figure of less than 50% prescription of VTE thromboprophylaxis in high risk patients is a major patient safety concern. There are numerous recognised international guidelines for prevention of VTE, and an efficient method to implement these guidelines needs to be developed. Beyond developing national guidelines for TP, we need a co-ordinated approach to implement and monitor compliance with guidelines. Once the preliminary results of this audit were available to us in March 2015, urgent measures were taken to reduce the identified risk such as the establishment of a Hospital Thrombosis Group which developed a user friendly VTE risk assessment tool and TP policy. The VTE risk assessment tool was incorporated into the patients drug prescription chart and included a pre printed prescription for TP. It is now mandatory for the all patients to have a VTE risk assessment tool and TP prescribed if appropriate within 24hrs of admission. This was successfully piloted for four weeks in the acute medical assessment unit and is now incorporated into each patients drug chart throughout the hospital. This audit will be replicated in 6 months from introduction of this initiative, with an aim of >90% compliance. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Feasibility of a structured risk assessment tool in general adult psychiatry admissions

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 418-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Smith ◽  
Tom White
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Royal Hospital ◽  
Comorbid Diagnosis ◽  
Adult Psychiatry ◽  
Risk Patients

AIMS AND METHODTo assess the feasibility of using a structured risk assessment tool (Historical Clinical Risk 20-Item (HCR–20) Scale) in general adult psychiatry admissions and the characteristics of ‘high-risk’ patients. A notes review and interviews were used to conduct an HCR–20 assessment of 135 patients admitted to Murray Royal Hospital, Scotland.RESULTSPatients scoring higher on the HCR–20 were discharged earlier and more likely to have a diagnosis of personality disorder and a comorbid diagnosis.CLINICAL IMPLICATIONSIt was possible to complete an HCR–20 assessment of over 80% of patients within 48 h of admission.

scholarly journals Obstetric hemorrhage risk assessment tool predicts composite maternal morbidity

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emer L. Colalillo ◽  
Andrew D. Sparks ◽  
Jaclyn M. Phillips ◽  
Chinelo L. Onyilofor ◽  
Homa K. Ahmadzia
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Prediction ◽  
Maternal Morbidity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
The United States ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Obstetric Hemorrhage ◽  
Hemorrhage Risk

AbstractObstetric hemorrhage is one of the leading preventable causes of maternal mortality in the United States. Although hemorrhage risk-prediction models exist, there remains a gap in literature describing if these risk-prediction tools can identify composite maternal morbidity. We investigate how well an established obstetric hemorrhage risk-assessment tool predicts composite hemorrhage-associated morbidity. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of a multicenter database including women admitted to Labor and Delivery from 2016 to 2018, at centers implementing the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses risk assessment tool on admission. A composite morbidity score incorporated factors including obstetric hemorrhage (estimated blood loss ≥ 1000 mL), blood transfusion, or ICU admission. Out of 56,903 women, 14,803 (26%) were categorized as low-risk, 26,163 (46%) as medium-risk and 15,937 (28%) as high-risk for obstetric hemorrhage. Composite morbidity occurred at a rate of 2.2%, 8.0% and 11.9% within these groups, respectively. Medium- and high-risk groups had an increased combined risk of composite morbidity (diagnostic OR 4.58; 4.09–5.13) compared to the low-risk group. This established hemorrhage risk-assessment tool predicts clinically-relevant composite morbidity. Future randomized trials in obstetric hemorrhage can incorporate these tools for screening patients at highest risk for composite morbidity.

P1803Refining the 2015 European guidelines risk assessment tool for pulmonary arterial hypertension in adult congenital heart disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A C Van Dissel ◽  
A P J Van Dijk ◽  
A L Duijnhouwer ◽  
B J M Mulder ◽  
B J Bouma
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Congenital Heart ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
European Guidelines ◽  
Pulmonary Arterial

Abstract Background Current European guidelines advocate a goal-oriented treatment approach in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), based on a comprehensive risk assessment. However, this instrument has been based predominantly on patients with idiopathic PAH and its accuracy has not been well established for PAH associated with congenital heart disease (CHD)–a patient population known to be distinctly different for other PAH aetiologies. Purpose To investigate the discriminatory ability of the guidelines risk assessment tool and explore the benefit of including other cut-offs or variables in PAH-CHD. Methods and results Data from 112 PAH-CHD patients (age 42.1±16 years, 70% Eisenmenger, 38% Down syndrome) seen between 2004 and 2016 at two specialized adult PAH-CHD expert centres were prospectively collected. Patients were classified as “Low”, “Intermediate”, or “High” risk following the strategy proposed by Kylhammar (Eur Heart J, 2017) based on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), 6-minute walk distance, functional class and imaging parameters and analysed by Kaplan-Meier method, truncated at 5 years. At baseline, 25% (28) of patients were classified as “Low risk”, 69% (77) as “Intermediate risk” and 6% (7) as “High risk”. Although survival was better (P=0.012) for patients with higher proportions of “Low risk” variables, this method did not discriminate well between the three risk groups (Figure 1A, P=0.371). One-year survival estimates corresponded moderately to those proposed by the guidelines, 96.4% in the “Low risk” (vs. >95%), 94.8% in the “Intermediate risk” (vs. 90–95%), and 85.7% in the “High risk” (vs. <90%) baseline cohorts, respectively. Analysis of different cut-off values for NT-proBNP (i.e., “Low”, “Intermediate”, “High” as <500, 500–1440 and >1400 ng/l, respectively) and use of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) measurements (“Low”, “Intermediate”, “High” as <1.6, 2.6–2.7 and >2.7 cm, respectively) as imaging parameter instead of right atrial area improved discrimination between the risk groups (Figure 1B). With these adjustments to the risk assessment tool, survival differed between all three risk groups (P<0.001). Figure 1 Conclusion Our preliminary findings suggest that an updated version of the European guidelines risk assessment tool–with different cut-off values for NT-proBNP and use of TAPSE–discriminates more accurately in the PAH-CHD population. Further analysis will be performed to estimate the prognostic benefit of reaching a “Low risk” profile, as this is the recommended treatment goal.

scholarly journals Is direct oral amoxicillin challenge a viable approach for ‘low-risk’ patients labelled with penicillin allergy?

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (9) ◽  
pp. 2475-2479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamidipudi T Krishna ◽  
Siraj A Misbah
Keyword(s):  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Major Public Health Problem ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Oral Amoxicillin ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Barriers To Implementation ◽  
Facilitators And Barriers ◽  
Viable Approach

Abstract Spurious penicillin allergy (PenA) is a major public health problem. Up to 10% of the population and 20% of inpatients are labelled with PenA, but only <5%–10% have a proven allergy following comprehensive investigations. PenA tests are labour intensive and require specialist input, which may not be readily available due to limited allergy services. Therefore, patients with PenA receive alternative antibiotics that are associated with higher rates of iatrogenic infections, antimicrobial resistance and a longer hospital stay with consequent increased costs. Recent evidence suggests that a supervised ‘direct’ oral amoxicillin challenge (without performing allergy tests) is a safe option in low-risk patients (those least likely to be allergic based on history). Patient selection for this procedure is based on a careful guideline-based risk stratification process. Further research is needed to validate this intervention in routine clinical practice and explore potential facilitators and barriers to implementation in different healthcare settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document