Cargando…

Systematic Review of Professional Liability when Prescribing Β-Lactams for Patients with a Known Penicillin Allergy

BACKGROUND: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic are more likely to receive second line non-β-lactam antibiotics, experience higher rates of treatment failure, and incur higher antibiotic costs. Fear of litigation has been identified as a reason clinicians avoid using β-lactams in a patient with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeffres, Meghan, Hall-Lipsy, Elizabeth, King, S Travis, Cleary, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631356/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.812
_version_ 1783269448208089088
author Jeffres, Meghan
Hall-Lipsy, Elizabeth
King, S Travis
Cleary, John
author_facet Jeffres, Meghan
Hall-Lipsy, Elizabeth
King, S Travis
Cleary, John
author_sort Jeffres, Meghan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic are more likely to receive second line non-β-lactam antibiotics, experience higher rates of treatment failure, and incur higher antibiotic costs. Fear of litigation has been identified as a reason clinicians avoid using β-lactams in a patient with a penicillin allergy. The systematic review objective is to describe medical negligence and malpractice cases in which known penicillin allergy patients received a β-lactam and experienced an adverse reaction. METHODS: Lexis-Nexus and Google Scholar were used to identify relevant legal cases. Variables collected from each case included date of publication, legal jurisdiction, date of injury, plaintiff and defendant demographics, health care setting, plaintiff clinical outcome, and legal outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-seven unique cases met inclusion criteria. The earliest case was published in 1959 and the most recent in 2013. The highest number of cases filed
(n = 7) occurred in the most recent 10 year segment, from 2005 to 2015. Eighteen cases involved the receipt of a penicillin-based antibiotic; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff (patient) prevailed or settled in 3 cases and defendants (providers) prevailed in 7 cases. Seven cases involved the receipt of a cephalosporin; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff settled with physicians prior to trial in 1 case and defendants prevailed in 3 cases. Two cases involved the receipt of a carbapenem. Defendants prevailed in 1 case and the legal outcome of the other case is unknown. In cases where the defense successfully moved for summary judgment, judges cited a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating that a cephalosporin or carbapenem were contraindicated for a patient with a penicillin allergy. CONCLUSION: The cases with published legal outcomes found limited professional liability and identify clear precedence for clinicians who prescribed cephalosporins or carbapenems to a patient with a known penicillin allergy. These results should decrease litigation fears of providers and risk managers within healthcare systems. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5631356
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56313562017-11-07 Systematic Review of Professional Liability when Prescribing Β-Lactams for Patients with a Known Penicillin Allergy Jeffres, Meghan Hall-Lipsy, Elizabeth King, S Travis Cleary, John Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic are more likely to receive second line non-β-lactam antibiotics, experience higher rates of treatment failure, and incur higher antibiotic costs. Fear of litigation has been identified as a reason clinicians avoid using β-lactams in a patient with a penicillin allergy. The systematic review objective is to describe medical negligence and malpractice cases in which known penicillin allergy patients received a β-lactam and experienced an adverse reaction. METHODS: Lexis-Nexus and Google Scholar were used to identify relevant legal cases. Variables collected from each case included date of publication, legal jurisdiction, date of injury, plaintiff and defendant demographics, health care setting, plaintiff clinical outcome, and legal outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-seven unique cases met inclusion criteria. The earliest case was published in 1959 and the most recent in 2013. The highest number of cases filed
(n = 7) occurred in the most recent 10 year segment, from 2005 to 2015. Eighteen cases involved the receipt of a penicillin-based antibiotic; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff (patient) prevailed or settled in 3 cases and defendants (providers) prevailed in 7 cases. Seven cases involved the receipt of a cephalosporin; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff settled with physicians prior to trial in 1 case and defendants prevailed in 3 cases. Two cases involved the receipt of a carbapenem. Defendants prevailed in 1 case and the legal outcome of the other case is unknown. In cases where the defense successfully moved for summary judgment, judges cited a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating that a cephalosporin or carbapenem were contraindicated for a patient with a penicillin allergy. CONCLUSION: The cases with published legal outcomes found limited professional liability and identify clear precedence for clinicians who prescribed cephalosporins or carbapenems to a patient with a known penicillin allergy. These results should decrease litigation fears of providers and risk managers within healthcare systems. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5631356/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.812 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Jeffres, Meghan
Hall-Lipsy, Elizabeth
King, S Travis
Cleary, John
Systematic Review of Professional Liability when Prescribing Β-Lactams for Patients with a Known Penicillin Allergy
title Systematic Review of Professional Liability when Prescribing Β-Lactams for Patients with a Known Penicillin Allergy
title_full Systematic Review of Professional Liability when Prescribing Β-Lactams for Patients with a Known Penicillin Allergy
title_fullStr Systematic Review of Professional Liability when Prescribing Β-Lactams for Patients with a Known Penicillin Allergy
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Review of Professional Liability when Prescribing Β-Lactams for Patients with a Known Penicillin Allergy
title_short Systematic Review of Professional Liability when Prescribing Β-Lactams for Patients with a Known Penicillin Allergy
title_sort systematic review of professional liability when prescribing β-lactams for patients with a known penicillin allergy
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631356/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.812
work_keys_str_mv AT jeffresmeghan systematicreviewofprofessionalliabilitywhenprescribingblactamsforpatientswithaknownpenicillinallergy
AT halllipsyelizabeth systematicreviewofprofessionalliabilitywhenprescribingblactamsforpatientswithaknownpenicillinallergy
AT kingstravis systematicreviewofprofessionalliabilitywhenprescribingblactamsforpatientswithaknownpenicillinallergy
AT clearyjohn systematicreviewofprofessionalliabilitywhenprescribingblactamsforpatientswithaknownpenicillinallergy