IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v30y2021i3-4p541-549.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Metal hypersensitivity screening among frontline healthcare workers—A descriptive study

Author

Listed:
  • Dzifa Dordunoo
  • Michelle Hass
  • Catherine Smith
  • Martha L. Aviles‐Granados
  • Miriam Weinzierl
  • Judith A. Anaman‐Torgbor
  • Ajijoon Shaik
  • Anastasia Mallidou
  • Farzad Adib

Abstract

Aims and objectives The study aims were to (a) assess allergy screening practices, (b) determine the awareness of metal hypersensitivity among frontline healthcare workers and (c) examine perceived barriers to implementing metal hypersensitivity screening into clinical practice. Background Adverse device‐related events, such as hypersensitivity to metals, are well documented in the literature. Hypersensitivity to metal is a type IV T‐cell‐mediated reaction that can occur after cardiac, orthopaedic, dental, gynaecological and neurosurgical procedures where a device with metal components is implanted into the body. Patients with hypersensitivity to metal are likely to experience delayed healing, implant failure and stent restenosis. Identifying patients with a history of metal hypersensitivity reaction could mitigate the risk of poor outcomes following device implant. Yet in clinical practice, healthcare workers do not routinely ask about the history of metal hypersensitivity when documenting allergies. The existing literature does not report why this is not included in allergy assessment. Design Following the STROBE checklist, a cross‐sectional, descriptive study was conducted. Methods Frontline healthcare workers were recruited using professional contacts and social online media to complete an online questionnaire. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively while thematic analysis was used to examine barriers to implementation. Results Three hundred forty‐five participants from 14 countries completed the questionnaire, with the majority (187/54%) practicing in Canada, in general medicine and intensive care units. Ninety per cent of the participants did not routinely ask about metal hypersensitivity when evaluating allergy history. Of the respondents, 86% were unaware of the association between metal hypersensitivity and poor patient outcomes. After presented with the evidence, 81% indicated they were likely or very likely to incorporate the evidence into their clinical practice. Common themes about barriers to implementing were ‘Standards of Practice’, ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Futility of Screening’. Conclusion The findings suggest lack of awareness as the main reason for not including metal in routine allergy assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dzifa Dordunoo & Michelle Hass & Catherine Smith & Martha L. Aviles‐Granados & Miriam Weinzierl & Judith A. Anaman‐Torgbor & Ajijoon Shaik & Anastasia Mallidou & Farzad Adib, 2021. "Metal hypersensitivity screening among frontline healthcare workers—A descriptive study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3-4), pages 541-549, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:3-4:p:541-549
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15571
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15571?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:3-4:p:541-549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.