Reducing Time to Antibiotic Administration for Febrile Neutropenia in the Emergency Department.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is an oncologic emergency, and prolonged time to antibiotic administration (TTA) is associated with increased hospital length of stay (LOS) and worse outcomes. We hypothesized that a febrile neutropenia pathway (FNP) quality initiative project would reduce TTA delays for febrile patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This prospective study compared ED FNP patients (> 18 years old), between June 2012 and June 2013 with both historical and direct admissions (DA) cohorts at a multispecialty academic center. Interventions included providing patients with FN-Alert cards, standardizing the definition of FN and recognizing it as a distinct chief complaint, revising ED triage level for FN, creating electronic FN order sets, administering empiric antibiotics before neutrophil count result, and relocating FN antibiotics to the ED. The primary outcome was TTA, with a target goal of 90 minutes after ED presentation. RESULTS: In total, 276 FN episodes in 223 FNP patients occurred over the 12-month study period and were compared with 107 episodes in 87 patients and 114 episodes in 101 patients in the historical and DA cohorts, respectively. Use of the FNP reduced TTA from 235 and 169 minutes in historical and DA cohorts, respectively, to 81 minutes, and from 96 to 68 minutes when the order set was not used versus used in the FNP group (P < .001 for all comparisons). Decrease in hospital LOS was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The ED FNP is a significant quality initiative with sustainable interventions, and was able to demonstrate value by decreasing TTA compared to both historical and DA controls in cancer patients presenting to the ED.

A survey of the use of time-out protocols in emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: Time-outs, as one of the elements of the Joint Commission Universal Protocol for Preventing Wrong Site, Wrong Procedure, and Wrong Person Surgery has been in effect since July 1, 2004. Time-outs are required by The Joint Commission for all hospital procedures regardless of location, including emergency departments (EDs). Attitudes about ED time-outs were assessed for a sample of senior emergency physicians serving in leadership roles for a national professional society. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was administered to members of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Council at the October 2009 ACEP Council meeting on the use of time-outs in the ED. A total of 225 (72%) of the 331 councilors present filled out the survey. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (13%) of respondents were unaware of a formal time-out policy in their ED, 79 (35%) reported that ED time-outs were warranted, and 5 (2%) reported they knew of an instance where a time-out may have prevented an error. Chest tubes (167 respondents [74%]) and the use of sedation (142 respondents [63%]) were most commonly identified as ED procedures that necessitated a time-out. Episodes of any wrong-site error in their EDs were reported by 16 (7%) of the respondents. Wrong patient (9 respondents [4%]) and wrong procedure (2 respondents [1%]) errors were less common. CONCLUSIONS: Although the time-out requirement has been in effect since 2004, more than 1 in 10 of ED physicians in this sample ofED physician leaders were unaware of it. According to the respondents, medical errors preventable by time-outs were rare; however, time-outs may be useful for certain procedures, particularly when there is a risk of wrong-site, wrong-patient, or wrong-procedure medical errors.