Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A reaudit of current febrile neutropenia practice in UK paediatric oncology centres prior to implementation of NICE guidance
  1. Jessica Bate1,
  2. Faith Gibson2,
  3. Karen Selwood3,
  4. Roderick Skinner4,
  5. Bob Phillips5,
  6. Julia C Chisholm6
  1. 1Division of Clinical Sciences, St George's, University of London, London, UK
  2. 2Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and London South Bank University, London, UK
  3. 3Oncology Unit, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
  4. 4Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Haematology/Oncology, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
  5. 5Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
  6. 6Children and Young People's Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jessica Bate, Division of Clinical Sciences, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George's, University of London, Jenner Wing, Level 2, Room 2.215E, Mail Point J2C, London SW17 0RE, UK; jbate{at}

Statistics from

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.

In September 2012, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published ‘Neutropenic sepsis: prevention and management of neutropenic sepsis in cancer patients’.1 No national guidelines for the management of neutropenic sepsis in children have been previously published. In 2008, the Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group produced a framework document for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN), based on a literature review and a Delphi survey.2 This document was designed to provide an evidence-based approach that could be used to inform local …

View Full Text


  • Contributors JC, FG, KS and JB collated and analysed the data. JB wrote the paper and JC, FG, KS, BP and RS revised the manuscript critically.

  • Competing interests None.

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