You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Variation in practice remains in the UK management of paediatric febrile neutropenia
  1. Fiona Herd1,
  2. Jessica Bate2,
  3. Julia Chisholm3,
  4. Emma Johnson4,
  5. Bob Phillips5,6
  1. 1 Paediatric Oncology, Great North Children's Hospital, Newcastle, UK
  2. 2 Paediatric Oncology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK
  3. 3 Paediatric & TYA Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4 Paediatric Oncology, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, UK
  5. 5 Paediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Leeds Children's Hospital, University of York, York, UK
  6. 6 NIHR Research Fellow, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Fiona Herd, Paediatric Oncology, Great North Children's Hospital, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle NE1 4LP, UK; fionaherd{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-310294

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Serious infection affects around 20% of patients who present febrile and neutropenic.1 Febrile neutropenia (FN) is thus a well-recognised medical emergency. Addressing the challenges of both rapid delivery of antibiotics to patients at risk of life-threatening sepsis and appropriate antibiotic stewardship to reduce antibiotic overuse continues to keep this a priority for clinicians, patients and parents. Audits of FN practice have previously demonstrated variation in definitions for FN and its management.1 ,2 In September 2012, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published the ‘Neutropenic sepsis: prevention and management of neutropenic sepsis in cancer patients’3 guideline and we sought to assess if this has reduced variations in practice.

    This reaudit included 45 UK centres (14 …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Jessica Bate at @jessica_bate

    • Contributors The study was designed by BP, JB, EJ and JC. Data analysis and initial report writing were performed by FH with significant editing and review by BP and JB. EJ and JC reviewed the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Further data are available on the CCLG website and centres received centre-specific data on their management of patients over the 2-week period and how these compare with guidelines and overall performance.