Diwura K Owolabi1, Richard Rowland2, Lauren King1, Rick Miller1, Gajanan G Hegde3, Jennifer Shang3, John Lister4, Arvind Venkat5. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: avenkat@wpahs.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the quality of care in admitted febrile neutropenic cancer patients presenting through the emergency department (ED) vs those directly admitted (DA) from the clinic or infusion center. We hypothesized that the quality of care would be comparable between these 2 pathways. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of all adult cancer patients hospitalized with subjective or objective fever (≥100.4°F) and documented neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count ≤1000/mm(3)) from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013, at 2 hospitals. Two investigators retrieved data including patient age, sex, race, tumor type, blood culture growth, temperature (actual or reported), pathway to admission (ED or DA), time to antibiotic administration, length of stay, and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk score. The primary outcome measures were time to antibiotic administration, appropriateness of antibiotic(s) administered based on published guidelines, length of stay, and MASCC score-based risk assessment. We used the t test for the difference between 2 means with unequal population variances to compare these outcome measures between ED and DA patients. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven visits met inclusion criteria (42 [33%] ED visits, 85 [67%] DA visits). Mean time to antibiotic administration, mean length of stay, appropriateness of antibiotics, and MASCC score-based risk assessment were comparable between ED and DA visits (P>.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The quality of care for febrile neutropenia in patients presenting through the ED was comparable to those directly admitted to the hospital in this 2-center study.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the quality of care in admitted febrile neutropenic cancerpatients presenting through the emergency department (ED) vs those directly admitted (DA) from the clinic or infusion center. We hypothesized that the quality of care would be comparable between these 2 pathways. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of all adult cancerpatients hospitalized with subjective or objective fever (≥100.4°F) and documented neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count ≤1000/mm(3)) from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013, at 2 hospitals. Two investigators retrieved data including patient age, sex, race, tumor type, blood culture growth, temperature (actual or reported), pathway to admission (ED or DA), time to antibiotic administration, length of stay, and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk score. The primary outcome measures were time to antibiotic administration, appropriateness of antibiotic(s) administered based on published guidelines, length of stay, and MASCC score-based risk assessment. We used the t test for the difference between 2 means with unequal population variances to compare these outcome measures between ED and DA patients. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven visits met inclusion criteria (42 [33%] ED visits, 85 [67%] DA visits). Mean time to antibiotic administration, mean length of stay, appropriateness of antibiotics, and MASCC score-based risk assessment were comparable between ED and DA visits (P>.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The quality of care for febrile neutropenia in patients presenting through the ED was comparable to those directly admitted to the hospital in this 2-center study.