科研之友
微信
新浪微博
Facebook
分享链接
摘要
Background: An abundance of new evidence regarding treatment strategies for neutropenic fever is likely to contribute to variability in practice across institutions and clinicians alike. Aims: To describe current clinical practices in Australia, by surveying haematologists, oncologists and infectious diseases physicians involved in cancer care. Methods: Clinician members from Australian professional associations, accounting for the vast majority of Australian cancer specialists, were invited to participate in an electronic survey, comprising of a clinical case-based questionnaire. Clinical practice areas explored were: use of risk-assessment and empiric antibiotic strategies across various treatment settings; use of anti-bacterial prophylaxis; and use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors for established neutropenic fever and for secondary prophylaxis. Results: A total of 252 clinicians returned responses (approximately 30% response rate). The majority (> 70%) were representative of practices in public, major city, tertiary referral hospitals. Less than half of clinicians were aware of risk-assessment tools and less than quarter currently used ambulatory care strategies. If adequate resources were made available, more than 80% were willing to use risk-assessment tools and 60% more clinicians were likely to use ambulatory care strategies. Most clinicians prescribed dual therapy parenteral antibiotics, even for clinically stable patients (53% haematologists, 56% oncologists). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was used frequently as secondary prophylaxis in the breast cancer case (91%), follicular lymphoma case (59%) and non-small cell lung cancer case (31%). Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was infrequently prescribed (19% oncologists, 30% haematologists). Conclusions: Evidence-practice gaps were identified around the use of risk-assessment-based empiric therapy, and help to inform better clinical guidance.
- 出版日期2011-1
