Quasi-experimental trial evaluates training's impact on nurses’ knowledge and confidence in allergy assessment, indicating improved practices.
BACKGROUND: Penicillins are the most commonly prescribed antibiotics; however, penicillin allergy (PA) labels are highly prevalent and often inaccurate, leading to suboptimal antibiotic selection use. In Mainland China, PA mislabeling is exacerbated by inappropriate penicillin skin testing (PST) practices. Nurses play a crucial role in assessing and labeling suspected PA, but the lack of systematic, evidence-based training limits their ability to address mislabeling effectively. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a structured one-day PA training course targeting nurses on their knowledge and self-reported confidence in PA assessment and skin testing practices. METHODS: A quasi-experimental pre- and post-test design was employed with 60 nurses in Mainland China who completed training course. Knowledge and self-reported confidence were assessed using a standardized 0-100 questionnaire (≥70=satisfactory) before training and at 1-month follow-up. Baseline results were also compared with those of nurses in Hong Kong. RESULTS: At baseline, overall knowledge did not differ significantly between Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong nurses, but Mainland nurses scored lower on PST-related practical knowledge questions (63.5 ± 32.9% vs. 56.6 ± 23.6%; p = 0.031). Following the training, there were significant improvements in both knowledge (64.3 ± 18.8 to 86.9 ± 9.9; p < 0.001) and self-reported confidence (72.0 ± 12.6 to 81.9 ± 8.7; p < 0.001). The proportion achieving a "satisfactory" score increased from 45.0% to 93.3% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A structured one-day training program significantly enhanced nurses' knowledge and confidence in PA assessment and PST. These findings support the integration of standardized, evidence-based PA training into nursing curricula, which may contribute to reducing mislabeling and promoting optimal antibiotic stewardship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: