BACKGROUND: Substantial numbers of patients are now receiving either immunosuppressive therapies or chemotherapy. There are significant risks in such patients of developing opportunistic infections or re-activation of latent infections, with higher associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this quality improvement project was to determine how effective 5 different specialties were in assessing and mitigating risks of developing opportunistic infections or re-activation of latent infections in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies.
METHODS: This was a single centre audit where records of patients attending clinics providing immunosuppressive therapies were reviewed for the following: evidence of screening for blood-borne virus [BBV] infections, varicella and measles immunity, latent/active TB or hypogammaglobulinaemia, and whether appropriate vaccines had been advised or various infection risks discussed. These assessments were audited against both national and international guidelines, or a cross-specialty consensus guideline where specific recommendations were lacking. Two sub-populations were also analysed separately: patients receiving more potent immunosuppression and black and minority ethnic [BME] patients,.
RESULTS: For the 204 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, BBV, varicella/measles and latent TB screening was inconsistent, as was advice for vaccinations, with few areas complying with specialty or consensus guidelines. Less than 10% of patients in one specialty were tested for HIV. In BME patients screening for HIV [60%], measles [0%] and varicella [40%] immunity and latent [30%] or active [20%] TB was low. Only 38% of patients receiving potent immunosuppression received Pneumocystis prophylaxis, with 3 of 4 specialties providing less than 15% of patients in this category with prophylaxis.
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with guidelines to mitigate risks of infection from immunosuppressive therapies was either inconsistent or poor for most specialties. New approaches to highlight such risks and assist appropriate pre-immunosuppression screening are needed.

During a two-day Royal Society meeting entitled \'Memory reactivation: replaying events past, present and future\' held at Chicheley Hall in May, 2019, we discussed and defined a set of terms for investigating and reporting in memory reactivations to facilitate a common language and thus simplifying comparison of results. Here, we present the results of the discussion and supply a set of terms such as reactivation and replay, for which the authors have reached a common consensus. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue \'Memory reactivation: replaying events past, present and future\'.