Utility of Respiratory Pathogen Panels in the Outpatient Oncology Setting.

Emily W Gripp, Bryan D Hess, Adam F Binder
{"title":"Utility of Respiratory Pathogen Panels in the Outpatient Oncology Setting.","authors":"Emily W Gripp, Bryan D Hess, Adam F Binder","doi":"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Oncology patients presenting for outpatient evaluation of a respiratory tract infection (RTI) are often tested for a variety of viruses with a respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) in addition to influenza and SARS-CoV-2. This triad of testing is expensive and uncomfortable because it requires 2 nasal swabs. Little evidence supports the use of an RPP in outpatient settings, but it is routinely ordered. This retrospective chart review analyzed 183 RPPs performed at Jefferson between April 2020 and November 2021 in outpatient oncology patients presenting with RTI. Data collected included patient demographics, symptoms, and exam findings at time of RPP, additional testing completed, results of RPP, antibiotic and antiviral use before and after RPP results, and patient outcomes 30 days after RPP. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Of the 183 RPPs analyzed, 16.9% (31) were positive for at least 1 respiratory virus. Fifty-two patients (28.4%) started antibiotics before results of the RPP. Of those, 2 patients (3.8%) had a change in antibiotic plan after RPP results returned. Zero patients were started on antiviral medication before results of the RPP. One patient started antiviral treatment after RPP results returned. In total, only 3 patients (1.6%) had an RPP-driven change in medication management. This study suggests limited utility in use of RPPs for oncology patients presenting to the office with RTI symptoms. Targeted testing with a single nasal swab for influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 may be more clinically relevant. The authors hope to use these data to implement a quality improvement initiative to reduce RPP utilization in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":101338,"journal":{"name":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","volume":"38 6","pages":"294-299"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Oncology patients presenting for outpatient evaluation of a respiratory tract infection (RTI) are often tested for a variety of viruses with a respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) in addition to influenza and SARS-CoV-2. This triad of testing is expensive and uncomfortable because it requires 2 nasal swabs. Little evidence supports the use of an RPP in outpatient settings, but it is routinely ordered. This retrospective chart review analyzed 183 RPPs performed at Jefferson between April 2020 and November 2021 in outpatient oncology patients presenting with RTI. Data collected included patient demographics, symptoms, and exam findings at time of RPP, additional testing completed, results of RPP, antibiotic and antiviral use before and after RPP results, and patient outcomes 30 days after RPP. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Of the 183 RPPs analyzed, 16.9% (31) were positive for at least 1 respiratory virus. Fifty-two patients (28.4%) started antibiotics before results of the RPP. Of those, 2 patients (3.8%) had a change in antibiotic plan after RPP results returned. Zero patients were started on antiviral medication before results of the RPP. One patient started antiviral treatment after RPP results returned. In total, only 3 patients (1.6%) had an RPP-driven change in medication management. This study suggests limited utility in use of RPPs for oncology patients presenting to the office with RTI symptoms. Targeted testing with a single nasal swab for influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 may be more clinically relevant. The authors hope to use these data to implement a quality improvement initiative to reduce RPP utilization in this population.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
呼吸道病原体小组在门诊肿瘤科的应用。
除了流感和严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型外,门诊评估呼吸道感染(RTI)的肿瘤患者还经常接受呼吸道病原体小组(RPP)的各种病毒检测。这种三联检测既昂贵又不舒服,因为它需要两个鼻拭子。几乎没有证据支持在门诊环境中使用RPP,但它是常规订购的。这项回顾性图表回顾分析了2020年4月至2021年11月期间在Jefferson对出现RTI的门诊肿瘤患者进行的183次RPP。收集的数据包括RPP时的患者人口统计、症状和检查结果、完成的额外测试、RPP结果、RPP前后的抗生素和抗病毒药物使用情况以及RPP后30天的患者结果。计算描述性统计。在分析的183个RPP中,16.9%(31)至少有1种呼吸道病毒呈阳性。52名患者(28.4%)在RPP结果出来之前开始使用抗生素。其中,2名患者(3.8%)在RPP结果返回后抗生素计划发生了变化。在RPP结果出来之前,零名患者开始服用抗病毒药物。一名患者在RPP结果返回后开始抗病毒治疗。总的来说,只有3名患者(1.6%)在药物管理方面发生了RPP驱动的变化。这项研究表明,RPP对出现RTI症状的肿瘤患者的应用有限。用单一鼻拭子进行流感、呼吸道合胞病毒和严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型的靶向检测可能更具临床相关性。作者希望利用这些数据来实施质量改进计划,以减少该人群中RPP的利用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Complications of Ambulatory Procedures: Prevalence and Hospital Outpatient Department Variation. From Data to Improvement: Social Mechanisms as a Key to Understanding Dashboard Adoption. A Checklist to Improve Acute Stroke Evaluation and Treatment in the Emergency Department. Depression and Distress Screening in Oncology Patients: A Descriptive Analysis. Is Pathogen Molecular Testing Reshaping Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1