Penicillin allergies: referral and management practices of anesthesiologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A questionnaire was designed to evaluate the referral practices of Anesthesiologists for a presumed Penicillin allergy. The preliminary study was administered as a semi-structured interview to Anesthesiology Staff Physicians and Senior Residents at Memorial University of Newfoundland. The responses were analyzed using recursive abstraction 89.5% of respondents have never referred patients for evaluation of drug allergy, although, an equal number felt a referral would be helpful. However, 47.3% said they have verbally communicated to their patients that they should speak to their Family Doctor for work up of their allergy. 21.1% of participants felt time constraint was a barrier to creating a referral; another 15.8% felt that this was the responsibility of another physician (Surgeon or Family Doctor). An additional 26.3% did not comment on barriers but stated they would just give an alternative medication rather than refer. Another 15.8% mentioned that surgery is generally imminent and would not delay surgery to a referral. All participants stated they would choose an alternative antibiotic in the case of a history of penicillin allergy. Carrying a presumed diagnosis of penicillin ‘‘allergy’’ has significant consequences on the health care system and patient outcome. Anesthesiologists in our study do inquire about specifics of allergy history, however, the referrals are virtually non-existent. As a result, anesthesiologists are prescribing more expensive antibiotics, which have higher potential for emergence of antibiotic resistance. Our future plans are to complete data collection at other centers and to develop an intervention to improve referral practices and study its impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".