Search

The urgent cancer care (UCC) clinic at CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB) opened in 2013 to provide care to individuals diagnosed with cancer and serious blood disorders experiencing complications from the underlying disorder or its treatment. This study examined the impact of the UCC clinic on other health care utilization in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. An interrupted time series study design was used to compare the rates of emergency department (ED) visits, primary care clinician (PCC) visits, and hospitalizations from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015. Rates of ED visits were also stratified by ED location, severity, and cancer type. We found a 6% (95% CI 1.00–1.13, p-value = 0.0389) increase in PCC visits, a 7% (95% CI 0.99–1.15, p-value = 0.0737) increase in hospitalizations, a 4% (95% CI 0.86–1.08, p-value = 0.5053) decrease in the rate of ED visits, and a 3% (95% CI 0.92–1.17, p-value = 0.5778) increase in the rate of ED visits during the UCC clinic hours after the UCC clinic opened. The implementation of the UCC clinic had minimal impact on health care utilization. Future work should examine the impact of the UCC clinic on other aspects of healthcare utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered and time spent waiting in CCMB's main clinics) and patient quality of life and patient and health care provider experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2013, Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB) launched an urgent cancer care clinic (UCC) to meet the needs of individuals diagnosed with cancer experiencing acute complications of cancer or its treatment. This retrospective cohort study compared the characteristics of individuals diagnosed with cancer that visited the UCC to those who visited an emergency department (ED) and determined predictors of use. Multivariable logistic mixed models were run to predict an individual’s likelihood of visiting the UCC or an ED. Scaled Brier scores were calculated to determine how greatly each predictor impacted UCC or ED use. We found that UCC visits increased up to 4 months after eligibility to visit and then decreased. ED visits were highest immediately after eligibility and then decreased. The median number of hours between triage and discharge was 2 h for UCC visits and 9 h for ED visits. Chemotherapy had the strongest association with UCC visits, whereas ED visits prior to diagnosis had the strongest association with ED visits. Variables related to socioeconomic status were less strongly associated with UCC or ED visits. Future studies would be beneficial to planning service delivery and improving clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]