Key components of anaphylaxis management plans: consensus findings from a national electronic Delphi study

Author:

Worth Allison1,Nurmatov Ulugbek1,Sheikh Aziz1

Affiliation:

1. Allergy & Respiratory Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences: General Practice Section, The University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK

Abstract

Summary Objectives There is no international consensus on the components of anaphylaxis management plans and responsibility for their design and delivery is contested. We set out to establish consensus among relevant specialist and generalist clinicians on this issue to inform future randomized controlled trials. Design A two-round electronic Delphi study completed by a 25-person, multidisciplinary expert panel. Participants scored the importance of a range of statements on anaphylaxis management, identified from a systematic review of the literature, on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very important’ to ‘irrelevant’. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 80% or more of panel members rated a statement as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ after Round 2. Setting Primary and secondary care and academic settings in the UK and Ireland. Participants Twenty-five medical, nursing and allied health professionals. Main outcome measures Consensus on the key components of anaphylaxis management plans. Results The response rate was 84% ( n = 21) for Round 1 and 96% ( n = 24) for Round 2. The key components of emergency care on which consensus was achieved included: awareness of trigger factors (100%); recognition and emergency management of reactions of different severity (100%); and clear information on adrenaline (epinephrine) use (100%). Consensus on longer-term management issues included: clear written guidelines on anaphylaxis management (96%); annual review of plans (87%); and plans that were tailored to individual needs (82%). Conclusions This national consensus-building exercise generated widespread agreement that emergency plans need to be simple, clear and generic, making them easy to implement in a crisis. In contrast, long-term plans need to be negotiated between patient/carers and professionals, and tailored to individual needs. The effectiveness of this expert-agreed long-term plan now needs to be evaluated rigorously.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 15 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Knowledge gaps in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis;Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology;2023-08

2. Preventing food allergy fatalities;Archives of Disease in Childhood;2023-01-23

3. Bringing an end to the silence: identifying priorities and solutions to addressing the mental health consequences of child marriage;Health Policy and Planning;2023-01-19

4. The Aetiology of Anaphylaxis;Quick Guide to Anaphylaxis;2019-12-11

5. Spanish list of potentially inappropriate drugs in the elderly (ES-PIA project);European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology;2019-05-08

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3