| Number of studies | Study designs | Pro forma types | Features of new pro forma | Effectiveness of new pro forma | Effectiveness-prevention of allergic reactions | Quality(a) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 1 RCT 5 studies with before-and-after study components 1 retrospective data review with prospective patient interview 2 prospective review of referral letters and admission records | 2 studies assessed a preoperative assessment form for patients undergoing surgical procedures 1 study assessed a standardised medication chart for inpatients 2 studies assessed a formal assessment pro forma with a clearly designated allergy section for i) use in paediatric inpatient unit and ii) within a department of psychiatry. 1 study assessed a structured penicillin allergy assessment form for patients attending a day surgery unit at a hospital 1 study assessed a structured pro forma for communication between GP practices and emergency departments | Making patient info more visible Giving prompts for clinicians to provide certain info, including allergy Allowing clinicians to provide detailed history of previous reactions Clearly designating an allergy-only section For communication between GPs and EDs: the front side was for GPs and the reverse side was for EDs to provide outcomes of the referred case Standardised to be consistent with other forms used in local area | Positive outcomes observed Reduction in prescribing errors Increase in compliance with documentation of allergy status in some charts but not others Increase in referral letters that include allergy information Increase in accuracy of allergy identification Increase in the number of times allergy components were included/completed Negative outcomes observed Increase in adverse drug reactions No overall difference in quality of information between new pro forma or previous version Decrease in frequency of recording of allergy by anaesthetists | One study reported the changes in rates of reactions: It was described that drug selection (previous ADR) was reduced from 21/9772 (0.21%) to 9/10352 (0.08%) | VERY LOW |
The majority of evidence stems from study designs with major risks of bias, such as retrospective and before-after designs. The method of analysis was also often not adequately described and did not adjust for any differences in group characteristics.
From: 9, Documenting and sharing information with other healthcare professionals
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.