Allergic diseases are on the increase and can affect the child’s well-being. The aim of this survey was to assess regional schools’ preparedness in dealing with anaphylaxis following the publication of national and international guidelines for schools in 2014. The survey was developed in 2015 and distributed to schools in Cumbria, North West England, UK between 2015 and 2016. Only 47% of the respondents (95% CI, 39–57%) felt confident to manage anaphylaxis. Schools without allergic pupils were significantly less likely to have a standard management protocol in place for emergencies compared to those with allergic pupils (p < 0.001). The majority of the schools indicated that further training was needed (81% (95% CI, 74–88%). Conclusion: At the time of the survey, schools’ preparedness in the region, did not meet safety standards recommended by national and international organisations. Although schools have shown eagerness in accessing training in the management of anaphylaxis, tailored training for schools is not yet widely available. There is now an urgent need to design feasible training strategies that create a safe environment for allergic pupils across all UK schools. What is Known:• One quarter of the severe allergic reactions take place for the first time while at school with some of them being fatal.• School staff is ill-prepared in the management of anaphylaxis. Access to formal training is not widely available. What is New:• School staff remains unconfident in managing the severe allergic child.Training in the management of anaphylaxis is scarce, and when available, it does not offer the required depth to cover the holistic needs of allergic pupils.• Schools would welcome generic adrenaline autoinjectors and a national policy with central funding which would describe step by step the necessary measures for the management of anaphylaxis.

Background: Recently non-statutory allergy management guidance for schools has been produced in the United Kingdom; however, there has been limited progress in implementing this. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of face-to-face training on self-reported school staff preparedness in managing the severely allergic child and whether it would stimulate schools' allergy policy review.Methods: A preparedness survey was conducted prior and 2 months postintervention to assess the effect of training on self-reported preparedness and perceived confidence to manage children with food allergies.Results: A sample of 18 primary schools that consented to participate were selected. Of the trained schools, 89% of the head teachers felt confident in dealing with an allergy emergency compared to 39% prior training (p = 0.016). Postintervention all but one had arranged/were considering introducing allergy awareness sessions to help pupils manage their allergies (45% pre-training vs. posttraining 93%, p = 0.003). Preventative measures for accidental exposure to food allergens (i.e., no food sharing policy) were adopted by all (pre-training 61% vs. posttraining 100%, p = 0.03). Conclusion:A face-to-face school allergy training programme enhances selfreported staff preparedness and promotes internal allergy policy review in managing the needs of these children, hence addressing the current gap between recommendations and practice in schools.

No abstract

Introduction: Incidence of anaphylaxis has increased threefold in the last 20 years, with 17% of preventable fatalities occurring in UK schools. The aim of this study was to measure schools’ anaphylaxis preparedness across the West of Scotland.     Methods: A survey was distributed to primary and secondary schools between January-June 2020. The objective and subjective preparedness levels were assessed by analysing item responses that reflected schools’ adherence to National/European guidelines, as well as their perception of preparedness. A scoring system was applied to classify schools as ‘equipped & ready’, ‘transitional’, ‘improvements required’ or ‘unprepared’.   Results: 155 schools responded, of which 72% (n=112) had pupils registered with severe allergies, issued with an adrenaline auto injector (AAI). 27% (n=44) had personalised allergy action plans in place, less than half of applicable schools (n=112) stored AAIs accessibly (n=54, 47%), and just 38% had canteen allergen labelling (n=59). 16% of schools had an allergy management policy (AMP, n=25), and previous experience managing anaphylaxis was associated with AMP implementation (p=0.009).  Schools rated their perceived preparedness highly, however only 5% (n=8) were categorized as ‘equipped & ready’ (score >75%) with a mean preparedness score across schools of 50%. Schools supported a need for a standardised national AMP and further training (n=151, 93%).    Conclusion: The results demonstrate a low level of schools’ anaphylaxis preparedness across the region, where experience may promote preparedness over available guidance. Statutory training may be required to support the implementation of an AMP and raise allergy awareness.

Recently non-statutory allergy management guidance for schools has been produced in the United Kingdom however there has been limited progress in implementing this. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of face-to-face training on self-reported school staff preparedness in managing the severely allergic child and whether it would stimulate schools’ allergy policy review. A preparedness survey was conducted prior and 2 months post-intervention to assess the effect of training on self-reported preparedness and perceived confidence to manage children with food allergies. A sample of 18 (10%) primary schools that consented to participate were selected. Of the trained schools, 89% felt confident in dealing with an allergy emergency compared to 39% prior training (p=0.016). Post intervention all but one had arranged/were considering introducing allergy awareness sessions to help pupils manage their allergies (45% pre-training vs post-training 93%, p=003). Preventative measures for accidental exposure to food allergens (i.e. no food sharing policy) were adopted by all (pre-training 61% vs post- training 100%, p=0.03). A face-to-face school allergy training programme enhances self-reported staff preparedness and promotes internal allergy policy review in managing the needs of these children, hence addressing the current gap between recommendations and practice in schools.