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]

Background: We examined the patterns of hand hygiene compliance (HHC) among health care providers (HCP) as observed by trained nurse and patient auditors over time in an ambulatory care Canadian provincial cancer agency., Methods: Nurse and volunteer patient auditors completed separate standardized forms documenting hand-cleansing opportunities during clinic visits. HHC rates were compared over time by HCP group and by specialty teams. Observations from 10 calendar quarters were analyzed from April 2015 to September 2019., Results: Nurse audit HHC rates ranged from 84% to 96%, encompassing 7,213 opportunities with no significant time-dependent trends by linear regression (R 2  = 2.3E-005, P = .9895). The patient audit HHC rates ranged from 57% to 82%, encompassing 23,402 opportunities, were lower overall compared to the nurse audit (73.6% vs 89.2%, respectively, P < .0001), but displayed an increasing trend (R 2  = 0.5374, P = .0159) over the same 10 time periods. The relative risk ratio for the differences decreased over time (R 2  = .5101, P = .0203). Patients acknowledged the importance of HHC and the audit process, but were reticent to remind HCP to comply., Conclusions: The nurse audit measuring HCP HHC before entering and after exiting patient examination rooms showed persistently high compliance over time whereas the patient-driven audit measuring HHC within the examination room increased over time suggesting a training effect upon practice. These measures appeared complementary., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.