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.

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to gather the available evidence on metal hypersensitivity to determine the extent of the problem and identify gaps in the evidence about screening practices. Introduction: Hypersensitivity to metal was first reported in 1966. Since this time, the use of metal in prosthetic devices has increased with an associated rise in reported hypersensitivity reaction to other metals. Symptoms of metal hypersensitivity can be subtle, and it is unclear whether clinicians are aware of or routinely ask patients about metal hypersensitivity when documenting allergies. This can lead to a delay in diagnosis, which puts patients at risk of poor outcomes. Hence, there is a need to map the available evidence on hypersensitivity reaction in people who receive metallic device implantation. Inclusion criteria: The review will consider studies that include patients who undergo procedures involving metal implantation. The concept to be explored is hypersensitivity following a procedure that involves the implementation of a device with metal components. Implementation is defined as permanent integration of a foreign (non-biological) object into the human body to restore function. Methods: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Searches will be generated in multiple databases and updated as needed. Gray literature and organizational websites will also be searched. Titles, abstracts, and full articles will be screened according to the inclusion criteria. Studies published in English from 1960 to the present will be included. Data will be extracted and findings will be presented in tabular form with a narrative summary.