Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • AAP Policy
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Policy
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effect on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Insights
  • AAP Career Center
  • Subscribe
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • AAP Policy
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Policy
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effect on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Insights
  • AAP Career Center
  • Subscribe

Journals Blog

  • Visit AAP News on Facebook
  • Follow AAP News on Twitter

Reducing Invasive Care for Febrile Infants

Scott Krugman, MD, MS, FAAP, Editorial Board Member, Pediatrics
February 06, 2019

It was so easy when I started internship in 1995. Any infant with a fever over 38 degrees C under 90 days of age automatically got the “full sepsis workup” – blood culture, CBC, urine culture, urinalysis, and an LP for gram stain, cell count and culture. All the infants were admitted for 48 hours and received empiric antibiotics. But then, in those three years of training, people started paying attention to the “fever guideline” published by Baraff et. al. in 19931 (yes, it takes a few years for articles to enter practice). So the 30-90 day infant evaluation strategy became not-so-straightforward. Further work over the subsequent 15 years has validated the clinical benefit and safety of only doing a limited evaluation on low risk febrile infants over 30 days old2. Using a limited approach provides benefits to the child and the health system: shorter or no hospital stay, less or no exposure to antibiotics, no lumbar puncture (LP), and decreased costs overall. But how can we get doctors and hospitals to follow this approach?

Fortunately, in this week’s Pediatrics,  Kasmire et. al. (10.1542/peds.2018-1610) from Connecticut Children’s Hospital shows us the way. In an elegantly done quality improvement project the authors describe their journey from a “high utilization” baseline for low-risk febrile infants to a significant reduction in LPs, antibiotics, and admission to the hospital. Their work demonstrates that just producing a clinical pathway or guideline isn’t enough. It’s necessary, but not sufficient. In order for it to be successful, you need to assure engagement by key stakeholders (in their case the physicians in the emergency department) and surround it with “continuous quality improvement.” By providing weekly feedback and repeated Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, the hospital dropped the percent of low-risk infants receiving LPs from 32% to 0, the antibiotic rate from 30% to 1%, and the admission rate from 17% to 1%. The low rates continued after the official intervention time period showing sustainability and no cases of “missed” infants with serious bacterial infections occurred.

This study highlights an important lesson for all pediatricians working in complex hospital systems. It takes more than just knowledge to make a practice change. We need to create improved systems and processes that are coupled with feedback and ongoing reflection to make sure we are doing what we think we are doing. You can start by reading how the Connecticut group made a difference in their hospital.


References

  1. Baraff LJ, Bass JW, Fleisher GR, Klein JO, McCracken GH, Powell KR, et al. Practice guideline for the management of infants and children 0 to 36 months of age with fever without source. Pediatrics 1993;92:1–12.
  2. Huppler AR, Eickoff JC, Wald ER. Performance of Low-Risk Criteria in the Evaluation of Young Infants With Fever: Review of the Literature. Pediatrics Feb 2010, 125 (2) 228-233; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-1070
  • Epidemiology of Invasive Early-Onset Neonatal Sepsis, 2005 to 2014
  • When Should Trainees Call for Help With Invasive Procedures?
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Pediatrics

Advertising Disclaimer »

Download PDF
Share
Reducing Invasive Care for Febrile Infants
Scott Krugman, MD, MS, FAAP
February 06, 2019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Email Blog Post

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reducing Invasive Care for Febrile Infants
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Digital Edition Current Issue
  • Latest Daily News
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Columns
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe to AAP News Magazine
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • FAQ
  • Contact Us
  • 2021 AAP Journals Catalog
  • Pediatrics
  • Pediatrics in Review
  • Hospital Pediatrics
  • NeoReviews
  • AAP Grand Rounds
  • AAP Career Center
  • shopAAP
  • AAP.org
  • AAP News
  • Visit AAP News on Facebook
  • Follow AAP News on Twitter
American Academy of Pediatrics

© 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics