Article

Febrile neutropenia in EDs: the role of an electronic clinical practice guideline

Unlabelled image febrile neutropenia in EDs: the role of “>American Journal of Emergency Medicine (2012) 30, 5-11.e5

Original Contribution

Febrile neutropenia in EDs: the role of an electronic clinical practice guideline^?,??

Charles Lim MD(c) ^a, Jaime Bawden BSc, MBBChBAOMD(c) ^b,

Andrew Wing BSc, MD(c) ^c, Cristina Villa-Roel MD, MSc ^a, David P. Meurer RN, BScN ^a,d,

Michael J. Bullard MD ^a, Brian H. Rowe MD, MSc ^a,e,?

^aDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

^bNational University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

^cFaculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University Medical School, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

^dAlberta Health Services, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

^eSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Received 30 June 2010; revised 31 August 2010; accepted 31 August 2010

Abstract

Purpose: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for managing febrile neutropenia (FN) are widely available; however, the integration of guidelines into routine practice is often incomplete. This study evaluated the uptake and clinical impact of implementing an electronic CPG on the management and outcomes of patients presenting with FN at 4 urban emergency departments (ED). Methods: A retrospective chart review over a 3-year period at 4 hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, was performed. Potentially eligible patient visits were identified by searching the Ambulatory Care Classification System database using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, codes and ED physician diagnoses of FN. ED patients with fever (N38?C at home or in ED) and neutropenia (white blood cell count of b1000 cells/mm³ or a Neutrophil count of b500 cells/mm³) who received an ED diagnosis of FN were included.

Results: From 371 potential cases, 201 unique cases of FN were included. Overall, the electronic CPG was used in 76 (37.8%) of 201 patient visits; however, there were significant differences in CPG utilization between hospitals. Clinical practice guideline usage was greatest at the University of Alberta Hospital (57%). This finding correlated with a decrease in time from triage to first antibiotic by 1 hour compared to the 3 control hospitals (3.9 vs 4.9 hours, P = .022).

Conclusions: The electronic CPG is a useful clinical tool that can improve patient management in the ED, and strategies to increase its utilization in this and other regions should be pursued.

^? Data from this study have been reported at the following scientific meeting: Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians Annual Scientific Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; May 29-June 2, 2010.

^?? Funding: This study was supported by Summer Studentship Awards (CL, AW) from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR)

and the Department of Emergency Medicine (JB), University of Alberta, both in Edmonton, Alberta. Dr Rowe is supported by the Government of Canada as a 21st Century Canada Research Chair.

* Corresponding author. Brian H Rowe, Research Director, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2B7.

Tel.: +1 780 407 6707; fax: +1 780 407 3982.

E-mail address: [email protected] (B.H. Rowe).

Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially life-threatening condition that requires urgent attention and management in the emergency department (ED) [1]. ED management is becoming increasingly important as the trend toward outpatient chemotherapy treatments continues to grow [2]. There is widespread consensus that early initiation of broad- spectrum antibiotic treatment is a cornerstone in effective ED management of FN [3,4].

evidence-based clinical guidelines for managing FN have been developed and are widely available; however, the integration of guidelines into routine practice is usually incomplete [5,6]. Reviews have shown that computer decision support systems (CDSSs) can be effective in narrowing gaps between “what we know” and “what we do” in clinical practice [7]. As a result, in 2001, the health informatics team at the University of Alberta Hospital (UAH) collaborated with other clinical colleagues to develop and implement an electronic clinical practice guideline (eCPG) for managing FN in the ED. Prior studies have assessed Physician satisfaction with other eCPG decision support tools as well the sensibility of the tools; however, the impact of using an eCPG on important time targets and the clinical management of FN patients in the ED remains unproven [8,9].

This study was designed to assess the uptake and clinical impact of the eCPG intervention on patients pre- senting with FN at 4 EDs in the urban health region of Edmonton, Alberta.

Methods

Study design

case definition“>A retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted to examine the management of patients with an ED diagnosis of “febrile neutropenia” between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2008, using a chart review methodology.

Study setting

This health region participates fully in the Ambulatory Care Classification System (ACCS) database maintained by the Alberta Health and Wellness. In Alberta, health records coders examine all ED charts and code information in a standardized manner, which is then submitted and included in the ACCS database. The ACCS database was used to identify eligible cases as it was the most accurate means of ensuring capture of all ED patients presenting with FN.

Charts were obtained from 4 EDs in the health region of Edmonton, Alberta: UAH, Royal Alexandra Hospital (RAH), Grey Nuns Community Hospital, and Misericordia

Community Hospital. The UAH is an academic teaching hospital and has more experience with eCPG development, implementation, and clinical utilization than the other hospitals. The RAH and UAH are designated trauma hospitals and the UAH is the designated ED destination for patients receiving treatment at the largest cancer center (Cross Cancer Institute) in Northern Alberta.

Study population

We screened adult (>=17 years of age) patients presenting to the ED receiving International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (ICD-10) codes of agranulocytosis or neutro- penia (ICD-10 code D70). At the UAH, all eligible visits in the 3-year study period were screened. A random sample (n = 40) of patient visits from each of the other 3 hospitals were selected. We used the following data elements from the ACCS database: hospital number, registration date, age, sex, Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity score, discharge disposition, and final diagnosis.

The UAH was designated as the intervention hospital because the eCPG application was primarily developed and had the greatest clinical penetration at that site. The FN eCPG is one of more than 80 Clinical decision support tools available in the eCPG application, and regional data indicate there are more than 9000 annual uses at the UAH site alone (D. Meurer, AHS; personal communication). The methods for knowledge dissemination at this site have included educational sessions, survey and feedback from the clin- icians, and iterative changes approved by representatives of the participating clinical groups. The remaining 3 hospitals were designated as control hospitals as they were not developers and had less experience with the eCPG application. Characteristics of the hospitals and EDs from the 4 sites are detailed in Table 1.

Case definition

A combination of criteria from the Emergency Medicine and Infectious Diseases literature defining FN was used: patients were included if they had an absolute white blood cell count of less than 1000 cells/mm³ or a neutrophil count of less than 500 cells/mm³ [10,11]. All patients were required to have a fever of higher than 38.0?C at home or in the ED in accordance with Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines [11]. Patients were eligible for inclusion if an ED physician made a final primary or secondary diagnosis of FN and the patient’s temperature and laboratory values met the criteria for FN. Patients were excluded if they were not seen by an ED physician because they were directly admitted to an inpatient ward, if they Left without being seen by an ED physician or without completing their treatment, or if their medical records were not found. For patients with multiple ED presentations of FN during the study period, only the first encounter was considered.

Table 1 Characteristics of 4 hospitals participating in the Febrile Neutropenia study for the fiscal year 2008-2009
		hospital types
		Intervention	Control 1	Control 2	Control 3
	No. of ED visits	77 130	61 759	57740	48 993
	No. of inpatient beds ^a	650	678	267	259
	No. of admissions	15 426	12 100	6074	5489
	Percentage admissions of ED patients Average ED LOS ^b (h)	20.00%	19.60%	10.50%	11.20%
	All patients	7.9	9.6	6.9	6.3
	Discharged patients	4.9	6.3	4.9	3.5
	Admitted patients	22.4	22.9	25.7	26.6
	Affiliated with cancer treatment center	Yes	No	No	No
	LOS indicates length of stay.
^a Data obtained from the Alberta Health Services-Edmonton Zone Web site (www.capitalhealth.ca/HospitalsandHealthFacilities/Hospitals). ^b Data obtained from the Alberta Health Services-Edmonton Zone Clinical performance unit.

Electronic clinical practice guideline

The FN eCPG was developed and implemented at the UAH in 2001 by a team of clinicians and health informatics specialists. All eCPGs are reviewed and modified on an ongoing basis to ensure that the recommended therapies are consistent with up-to-date clinical evidence. The FN eCPG was updated in 2005 to reflect new antibiotic recommenda- tions. Physicians at all 4 hospitals may access this eCPG via an Intranet web browser portal; however, its use has never been made mandatory and patient management practice remains at the discretion of the most responsible physician. Moreover, the physicians at all sites were unaware of the study at the time of the patient encounter.

Outcomes

This study examined both informatics-related outcomes focused on physician behavior and ED workflow, as well as FN patient clinical outcomes. The primary outcome for the informatics component was the proportion of patient visits in which the eCPG was used, compared between the inter- vention and control hospitals. Secondary outcomes included changes in eCPG use over time and time flow related to ED management of FN patients, particularly the time interval from triage to the Initial administration of antibiotics. The primary outcome of interest for the clinical component of the study was change in patient outcomes (length of ED stay, disposition). Investigations (cultures, imaging) and treat- ments (antibiotics, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCF)) used in management are also reported.

Data collection

A code book containing operational definitions of all variables was developed before data collection. Data were collected from ED charts, from the regional electronic health

records (Alberta NetCare), and from the online Emergency Department Information System database by 3 trained data abstractors using a standardized form. The abstractors were aware of the study hypothesis; however, the main clinical outcomes were obtained from administrative data to reduce bias. Administrative databases data were used to record patient age and sex, time and date of patient presentation, time and date seen by the emergency physician , time of discharge, disposition, and final diagnosis. All remaining data were abstracted from the ED patient charts. Interob- server agreement and reliability were assessed from a random selection of 29 charts using the ? statistic and the intraclass correlation coefficient . Variables analyzed included time and date of patient presentation, time and date seen by EP, time and date of first vital signs, and time and date of antibiotics administered. Other variables included patient age and sex, use of the eCPG, value of first WBC count, value of first Polymorphonuclear Leucocyte count, antibiotics used, disposition, and final diagnosis.

Statistical analysis

Data analyses were performed using Stata Statistical Software Release 10.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). Descriptive analyses included proportions for categor- ical variables and medians with interquartile ranges for continuous variables as most of the data did not follow a normal distribution. Bivariable analyses were performed using ?2 or Mann-Whitney U tests according to the nature of the variables.

Ethics

The protocol for this study was approved by the health research ethics board of the University of Alberta and patient consent was not required. Physicians were unaware that a study would be conducted at the time of the patient encounter.

Intervention hospital (n = 128)		Control hospitals (n = 73)	P
Patient history
Age (y), median (IQR)	51 (40, 65)	57 (47, 68)	.09
Female sex, n (%)	56 (43.7%)	28 (38.4%)	.46
Allergy to any medications, n (%)	50 (39.1%)	29 (39.7%)	.97
Features at ED presentation
Vital signs
Pulse (/min), median (IQR)	109 (96, 122)	112 (96, 122)	.88
Respiratory rate (/min), median (IQR)	20 (18, 22)	18 (18, 20)	.17
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg), median (IQR)	118 (107, 135)	117 (108, 132)	.91
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), median (IQR)	72 (63, 84)	70 (64, 81)	.33
Features of FN at ED presentation
Absolute WBC count (x10³ cells/mm³), median (IQR)	0.8 (0.4, 1.3)	0.9 (0.6, 1.2)	.29
absolute neutrophil count (x10³ cells/mm³), median (IQR)	0.1 (0, 0.3)	0.1 (0, 0.3)	.81
Temperature (?C), median (IQR)	38.2 (37.2, 38.8)	38.0 (37.1, 38.5)	.18
IQR indicates interquartile range.

Results

Table 2 Characteristics of patients with FN according to treatment at intervention vs control hospital sites

Sample and demographics

In total, 371 unique visits were identified as potential cases based on ICD-10 criteria and 201 patient visits were included for review in this study. Exclusions occurred as follows: 54 patients received ED diagnoses other than FN, 48 patients were directly admitted to hospital, 1 patient left without treatment, and 57 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria. Medical records were not found for 10 patients. The Interobserver agreement for major study outcomes (e.g., time seen by ED physician, time to first antibiotic, disposition, and final diagnosis) among all 3 data abstractors was excellent (?/ICC N0.9). The ? was lower (0.6) for the variable “use of other antibiotics” because it was a free text entry, unlike other fixed variables such as use of piperacillin- tazobactam or ceftazidime. These outcomes were selected based on relevance to the Study objectives and with the purpose of representing a broad spectrum of variable types. There were 128 visits at the intervention hospital and 73 visits at the control hospitals (16 at RAH [control 1], 25 at GNH [control 2], 32 at Misericordia Community Hospital [control 2]). Patient demographics and vital signs upon presentation to the ED were similar between both groups. The median temperature taken at ED presentation was

38.2?C at the intervention hospital and 38.0?C in the control hospital group. The median absolute neutrophil count was

0.1 x 10³ cells/mm³ for both groups (see Table 2).

Electronic clinical practice guideline use

Overall, the eCPG was used for 76 (37.8%) of 201 patients. Fig. 1 summarizes the proportion of eCPG use by hospital site over the 3-year study period. No evidence of

eCPG use could be found at 2 control hospitals and use was low (19%) at the other control hospital. At the intervention site, most FN patients (57%) were treated using the eCPG and there was no evidence of a trend of increasing or decreasing use over time.

Management

Investigations such as ECG (46.9% vs 31.5%, P = .03) and blood culture (96.1% vs 93.1%, P = .04) were performed more frequently in patients presenting to the intervention hospital. The most common antibiotic administered at the intervention hospital was piperacillin-tazobactam, where- as ceftazidime was the most commonly used among the control hospitals. Emergency physicians used G-CSF for approximately 1 in 4 FN patients; however, the percentage of patients receiving the agent did not differ between

Fig. 1 Proportion of FN eCPG use between 2006 and 2008 according to hospital site.

Fig. 2 ED times of patients with FN according to treatment at intervention vs control hospital sites.

intervention and control sites (28.9% vs 21.9%, P = .27). Of note, the FN eCPG prompts the EP to order G-CSF after consultation with the hematologist or infectious diseases physician. The FN eCPG also provides access to specific G- CSF information to the EP at the point of ordering.

Fig. 2 summarizes ED times for FN patients. Times from triage to room placement and from triage to physician assessment were not significantly different. However, at the intervention hospital, there were reductions in median time from triage to first consultation (3.8 vs 5.0 hours, P = .001) and time from triage to first antibiotic (3.9 vs 4.9 hours, P =

.02). The subgroup of physicians at the intervention hospital who elected to use the eCPG achieved slightly different median times from triage to first antibiotic compared to the

subgroup of physicians not using the eCPG (3.8 vs 4.2 hours); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .31). Table 3 also summarizes ED management for FN patients.

Disposition

In both the intervention and control hospital groups, the vast majority of FN patients were either admitted to hospital or transferred to the Cross Cancer Institute. The time from triage to admission or transfer was not significantly different. Patients presenting to control hospitals were more likely to be discharged home (15.1% vs 7.0%, P =

.04) (Table 4).

Table 3 ED management of patients with FN comparing treatment at intervention vs control hospital sites

Table 4 Comparison of outcomes of patients with FN at intervention vs control hospital sites

Intervention hospital (n = 128)		Control hospitals (n = 73)	P
ED investigations Blood cultures done, n (%) ECG done, n (%) Chest x-ray done, n (%) ED treatments patients receiving piperacillin-tazobactam, n (%) patients receiving ceftazidime, n (%) patients receiving G-CSF, n (%)	123 (96.1%)	68 (93.1%)	.04 ?
	60 (46.9%)	23 (31.5%)	.03 ?
	112 (87.5%)	62 (84.9%)	.77
	84 (65.6%)	10 (13.7%)	b.001 ?
	21 (16.4%)	44 (60.3%)	b.001 ?
	37 (28.9%)	16 (21.9%)	.27
* P b .05, statistically significant.

Intervention Control P

hospital hospitals

(n = 128) (n = 73)

Disposition

Admitted or 118 (92.2%) 62 (84.9%) .47

transferred, n (%)

Time from triage to 14 (11.1, 16.3) 12.8 (10.1, 15.8) .96 admission/transfer

(h), median (IQR)

Discharged home, n 9 (7.0%) 11 (15.1%) .04? (%)

Time from triage to 4.4 (4.3, 6.3) 6.4 (4.9, 10.9) .14 discharge (h),

median (IQR)

Died in ED, n (%) 1 (0.8%) 0 N/A

* P b .05, statistically significant.

Discussion

Computer Decision support systems have the potential to improve and standardize practice, especially for rare but Serious conditions [12]. One such tool for clinicians are care maps derived from high-quality evidence (individual trials, systematic reviews) or combined evidence summaries from published CPGs. In this study, the penetration and effectiveness of an eCPG for FN were examined. The results illustrate there was a clear difference in eCPG utilization between the intervention hospital and the control hospitals. The increased usage at the UAH was likely the result of greater physician experience and familiarity with the eCPG application as well as recognition that these tools represented the recognized standard of care. In addition to the FN eCPG, UAH EPs routinely used eCPGs specifically designed for patients with other presenting conditions such as chest pain, asthma, or cellulitis. The clinical group of UAH EPs was also actively involved in revising existing eCPGs as well as in developing new eCPGs.

The eCPG application (Web based, modularly designed CDSS containing a collection of interactive eCPGs) was originally developed in 2000 to 2001 and made available to clinical users at the UAH in April 2001. The eCPG application was updated in October 2005 and disseminated to other sites in April 2006. During the dissemination process, all sites were provided with eCPG application access, educational presentations, and a demonstration from the development team. Unfortunately, there was no plan with appropriate resources to implement ongoing support for the clinical users of the application nor were there any resources to support any eCPG modifications to meet specific site- based needs. This may have contributed to the poorer integration of eCPGs in patient management [12]. In contrast, the greater experience with eCPGs and the ongoing interaction with the health informatics development team may have contributed to improved eCPG utilization at the intervention hospital, resulting in the large disparity observed in eCPG use between hospital sites. This finding is consistent with previous reports in the literature that CDSS implementation is more successful when the study authors are also actively involved in developing and supporting the tool [13]. In this case, clinician members of the development team were strong advocates encouraging their clinical colleagues to use the eCPG tools. Finally, eCPG champions have emerged at the UAH, whereas the other sites have no such identified or funded individuals. This may have also contributed to the lower uptake of the eCPG application at other sites.

There were no significant differences in presenting patient demographics and vital signs between the intervention and control hospital patients. This suggests that selection bias was not involved in determining which hospital site FN patients presented to. We found that the median time from triage to first antibiotic was approximately 1 hour faster at the intervention site compared to the control hospitals. This

finding is both statistically significant and clinically significant. Previous studies have demonstrated that delays in antibiotic administration in serious infections result in poorer patient outcomes [14,15]. Although no defined benchmark for acceptable time to antibiotic for FN patients has been described in the literature, the reduction of time to antibiotic administration by an hour reported in this study indicates an important improvement in clinical management [16]. In addition to reducing the time to antibiotic initiation, greater eCPG use at the UAH also correlated with greater compliance in prescribing piperacillin-tazobactam as a first- line treatment. Given that this recommendation was updated in 2005 based on a review of current evidence, local antibiotic resistance patterns, and higher complication rate among FN patients using the previously recommended combination of ampicillin and tobramycin, eCPG use at the UAH appears to have improved adherence to these recommended and evidence-based prescribing patterns [17]. We elected to analyze hospital-level data rather than the eCPG utilization data because the control and intervention hospitals were inherently different with regard to follow-up after eCPG implementation, interaction with the health informatics team, and advocacy for eCPG use. These systemic differences would have influencED patient care regardless of actual eCPG use because they contributed to greater overall familiarity with standard investigations and evidence-based treatments for FN patients. Thus, the systemic development of eCPGs and experience using these tools at the intervention hospital improved the standard

of care for patients presenting with FN.

Despite the advances at the intervention hospital, the median door-to-antibiotic time of 3.9 hours still represents a substantial delay in delivering appropriate antibiotic therapy. In similar studies reporting time to antibiotic for FN patients, one study reported a median time of 210 minutes from ED arrival to antibiotic administration and a second study reported an average door-to-antibiotic time of 170 minutes in a sample of 55 patient visits to a US ED [10,18]. Increased efforts are required to further decrease the time from triage to antibiotic administration at the UAH. The crisis of ED overcrowding experienced in many urban EDs needs to be addressed to mitigate front-end delays before ED physician assessment. This study suggests that ED staff should be further educated to improve the recognition and awareness of the critical need for prompt treatment for FN patients. Efforts are also needed to increase eCPG awareness and utilization at the control hospitals.

This study has several limitations that need to be discussed. First, the study used a retrospective chart review design and there are inherent challenges with missing information and poor documentation. Efforts were made to use accepted chart review methods, to assess outcomes that were automatically recorded in electronic ED information systems, and to examine nursing recorded antibiotic administration [19]. Second, data abstractors were not blinded to the study hypothesis; however, a standard data

abstraction form was used and the timing of antibiotic delivery was unbiased [20]. Third, the study did not examine long-term outcomes of the enrolled patients because of transfer to other treatment centers such as the Cross Cancer Institute and the lack of linked follow-up data. Fourth, delays due to overcrowding are now commonplace in Canadian EDs, and differences in time from triage to room placement represent a barrier to achieving timely evidence-based care [21]. Many patients in this cohort experienced delays in room placement and while the eCPG may have helped reduce their time from placement to antibiotic, the overall influence on time from triage to antibiotic was diluted by these placement delays. Lastly, individual ED physicians may tend to use the eCPG either for all FN patients they encounter or not at all [8]. Because eCPG use is not mandatory, there may have been bias introduced based on which physicians used the eCPG and which physicians chose not to.

Conclusions

Successful implementation of eCPGs requires ongoing staff training as well as “champions” advocating for the uptake and use of these tools among their clinical colleagues. This study has shown that systemic hospital-level imple- mentation of an FN eCPG was correlated with a reduction in time from triage to antibiotic administration. There is currently a large disparity in eCPG utilization among the hospitals included in this study, and it appears that additional knowledge dissemination efforts are warranted along with ongoing evaluation of eCPG use. Further research is required to identify and overcome current barriers to implementing all eCPGs, thereby increasing standardization and improv- ing clinical management for patients presenting to EDs here and elsewhere.

References

Klastersky J. Management of fever in neutropenic patients with different risks of complications. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39(Suppl 1): S32-7.
Courtney DM, Aldeen AZ, Gorman SM, Handler JA, Trifilio SM, Parada JP, et al. Cancer-associated neutropenic fever: clinical outcome and economic costs of emergency department care. Oncologist 2007;12(8):1019-26.
Baltic T, Schlosser E, Bedell MK. Neutropenic fever: one institution’s Quality improvement project to decrease time from patient arrival to initiation of antibiotic therapy. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2002;6(6):337-40.
Paul M, Yahav D, Fraser A, Leibovici L. Empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-

analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;57(2):176-89.

Marti FM, Cullen MH, Roila F, ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Management of febrile neutropenia: ESMO clinical recommendations. Ann Oncol 2009;20(Suppl 4):166-9.
Shiffman RN, Michel G, Essaihi A, Thornquist E. Bridging the guideline implementation gap: a systematic, document-centered approach to guideline implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004;11(5):418-26.
Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S, Gandhi T, Kittler A, Volk L, et al. Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10(6):523-30.
Graham TA, Bullard MJ, Kushniruk AW, Holroyd BR, Rowe BH. Assessing the sensibility of two clinical decision support systems. J Med Syst 2008;32(5):361-8.
Graham TA, Kushniruk AW, Bullard MJ, Holroyd BR, Meurer DP, Rowe BH. How usability of a web-based clinical decision support system has the potential to contribute to adverse medical events. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008:257-61.
Perrone J, Hollander JE, Datner EM. Emergency department evaluation of patients with fever and chemotherapy-induced neutro- penia. J Emerg Med 2004;27(2):115-9.
Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP, Bow EJ, Brown AE, Calandra T, et al. 2002 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34(6):730-51.
Holroyd BR, Bullard MJ, Graham TA, Rowe BH. Decision support technology in knowledge translation. Acad Emerg Med 2007;14(11): 942-8.
Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293(10):1223-38.
Natsch S, Kullberg BJ, van der Meer JW, Meis JF. Delay in administering the first dose of antibiotics in patients admitted to hospital with serious infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998;17(10):681-4.
Natsch S, Kullberg BJ, Meis JF, van der Meer JW. Earlier initiation of antibiotic treatment for severe infections after interventions to improve the organization and specific guidelines in the emergency department. Arch Intern Med 2000;160(9):1317-20.
Corey AL, Snyder S. Antibiotics in 30 minutes or less for febrile neutropenic patients: a quality control measure in a new hospital. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 2008;25(4):208-12.
Paul M, Soares-Weiser K, Grozinsky S, Leibovici L. Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside Combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropaenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003(3): CD003038.
Nirenberg A, Mulhearn L, Lin S, Larson E. Emergency department Waiting times for patients with cancer with febrile neutropenia: a pilot study. Oncol Nurs Forum 2004;31(4):711-5.
Worster A, Haines T. Advanced statistics: understanding medical record review (MRR) studies. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11(2):187-92.
Randolph AG, Haynes RB, Wyatt JC, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XVIII. How to use an article evaluating the clinical impact of a computer-based clinical decision support system. JAMA 1999;282(1):67-74.
Bond K, Ospina MB, Blitz S, Afilalo M, Campbell SG, Bullard M, et al. Frequency, determinants and impact of overcrowding in emergency departments in canada: a national survey. Healthc Q 2007;10(4):32-40.

Appendix A: Data Collection Form

Date of Presentation to ED: / / Triage time⁴: :

FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA STUDY

Enrollment Chart Review Form

Review ID:

Patient Initials:

Center Collector Consecutive

dd mm yyyy (00:00-23:59)

Date seen by TLP if applicable⁵: / / Time seen by TLP if applicable⁶: :

dd mm yyyy (00:00-23:59)

Date of Placement in Room: / / Time of Placement in Room: :

dd mm yyyy (00:00-23:59)

Actual date seen by ED MD⁵: / / Actual time seen by ED MD⁶: :

dd mm yyyy (00:00-23:59)

Sex⁷: Male (1) Female (0) Age in years⁸:

Ht⁹: cm in Not documented (.) Wt¹⁰: kg lb Not documented (.) Arrival method¹¹: Walking (1) private vehicle (2) EMS (3) STARS/Fixed Wing (4) Other (5)

eCPG Usage¹²: Yes (1) No (0)

If yes, then¹³: Completed Electronically (1) Printed and Completed by Hand (2) CTAS Score¹⁴: Not documented (.)

Emergency Department Evaluation

Vital Signs¹⁵ (earliest documented) : / / :

dd mm yyyy (00:00-23:59)

Respiratory Rate¹⁶ / min Not documented (.)

Pulse Rate¹⁷ / min Not documented (.)

Blood Pressure¹⁸: / mmHg Not documented (.)

Temperature¹⁹ . ?C Not documented (.) Oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry²⁰ % Not documented (.)

On oxygen?²¹ Yes (1) No (0) If yes, then O₂ flow²²: L/min

Investigations: (Done within 12 hours of the Triage Time)

CBC²³: Yes (1) No (0)

If yes, then: Hgb²⁴:

Plts²⁵:

WBC (absolute WBC count)²⁶:

WBC (absolute PMN count)²⁷: Unable to Complete (1)

Actual date and time of result delivery²⁸ / / : Not Documented (.)

dd mm yyyy (00:00-23:59)

FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA STUDY

Enrollment Chart Review Form

Investigations: (cont.) (Done within 12 hours of the Triage Time)

INR”:	Yes (1)	No (O)	If yes, then Value”:
PTT3*: @	Yes (1)	@ No (O)	If yes, then VaIue?³:

Lytes³?: Yes (1) No (0)

If yes, then:	Sodium*⁵:	mmol/L
	Potassium³‘:	mmol/L
	Chloride³⁷:	mmol/L
Creatinine ³⁸: @ Yes (1) @ No (O) If yes, then Values : umoI/L

Was an ECG performed?⁴? @ Yes (1) @ No (0) @ Not Documented (.) Was a chest x-ray performed”? Yes (1) No (O) Not Documented (.)

Urea⁴“	@ Yes (1) @ No (O)	If yes, then VaIue⁴¹: mmol/L
GIucose4*	Yes (1) No (O)	If yes, then Value⁴³: mmol/L

Were ABGs drawn”? @ Yes (1) @ No (0) @ Not Documented (.)

If yes, then⁴‘: pH / PaCOz / PaOz / HCO,

Cultures: (Done within 12 hours of the Triage Time)

Was a urine culture performed?’? Was a blood culture performed”? Was a throat culture performed ⁰? Was a skin culture performed”?

@ Yes (1) @ No (0) @ Not Documented (.) Yes (1) No (O) Not Documented (.)

Was an abscess culture performed ?? @ Yes (1) @ No (0) @ Not Documented (.)

Was a sputum culture performed⁵³* Type and screen performed”?

@ Yes (1) @ No (0) @ Not Documented (.) Yes (1) No (O) Not Documented (.)

Consultations:

Date and Time of Earliest Consult*^ / /

dd mm yyyy

(00:00-23:59)

@ Not Documented (.)

Consult Service	Yes (1)	No (0)
Hematology ⁵
Oncology⁵‘
Infectious Diseases”
Medicine”
Other ‘

FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA STUDY

Enrollment Chart Review Form

Emergency Department Management
Pre ED antibiotic treatment Flouroquinilones (Ciprofloxacin, Levofloxacin, Moxifloxacin) ⁶¹	Yes (1)	No (0)
Macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin) ⁶²	Yes (1)	No (0)
PCN (amoxil, amoxil/clavulinic acid, PCN) ⁶³	Yes (1)	No (0)
Cephalosporins (ceftazidime, cefuroxime, cefaclor, cephalexin) ⁶⁴	Yes (1)	No (0)
Other⁶⁵:	Yes (1)	No (0)
Allergies⁶⁶: Yes (1) No (0) Not Documented (.)
If yes, then: Flouroquinilones (Ciprofloxacin, Levofloxacin, Moxifloxacin) ⁶⁷	Yes (1)	No (0)
Macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin) ⁶⁸	Yes (1)	No (0)
PCN (amoxil, amoxil/clavulinic acid, PCN) ⁶⁹	Yes (1)	No (0)
Cephalosporins (ceftazidime, cefuroxime, cefaclor, cephalexin) ⁷⁰	Yes (1)	No (0)
Sulfa-based drugs ⁷¹	Yes (1)	No (0)
Doxycycline ⁷²	Yes (1)	No (0)
Other⁷³:	Yes (1)	No (0)
ED Antibiotics:

Antibiotic	Yes (1)	No (0)		Date of first dose (dd/mm/yyyy)	Time of first dose (00:00 - 23:59)	Dose (mg)
Piperacillin/Tazobactam⁷⁴			If yes, then
Imipenem⁷⁵			If yes, then
Vancomycin⁷⁶			If yes, then
Tobramycin⁷⁷			If yes, then
Ceftazidime⁷⁸			If yes, then
Other⁷⁹:			If yes, then

ED Antivirals:

Antiviral	Yes (1)	No (0)		Date of first dose (dd/mm/yyyy)	Time of first dose (00:00 - 23:59)	Dose (mg)
Acyclovir			If yes, then
Ganciclovir			If yes, then
Other:			If yes, then

FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA STUDY

Enrollment Chart Review Form

ED Antifungals:

Antifungal

Yes (1)

No (0)

Date of first dose

(dd/mm/yyyy)

Time of first dose

(00:00 — 23:59)

Dose (Units)

Nystatin

If yes, then

Other:

If yes, then

Other ED Medications:

Medication	Yes (1)	No (0)		Date of first dose {dd/mm/yyyy)	Time of first dose (00:00 — 23:59)	Dose (mg)
G-CSF”			If yes, then
Acetaminophen?’			If yes, then
Ibuprofen”			If yes, then
Inotropes”			If yes, then
Corticosteroids’⁴			If yes, then

ED IV fluids:

IV Fluid	Yes (1)	No (0)		Volume in first hour (mL)	Volume in first 4 hours (mL)	Total volume given in ED (mL)
Normal Saline??			If yes, then
Ringeris Lactate”			If yes, then
Other :			If yes, then

ED Transfusions:

Blood Product	Yes (1)	No (0)		Date of first dose (dd/mm/yyyy)	Time of first dose (00:00 — 23:59)	Number of Units
Packed RBCs”			If yes, then
Platelets”			If yes, then
Plasma”			If yes, then