Internal medicine residents' evaluation of fevers overnight

7Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Scant data exists to guide the work-up for fever in hospitalized patients, and little is known about what diagnostic tests medicine residents order for such patients. We sought to analyze how cross-covering medicine residents address fever and how sign-out systems affect their response. We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate febrile episodes that residents responded to overnight. Primary outcomes included diagnostic tests ordered, if an in-person evaluation occurred, and the effect of sign-out instructions that advised a "full fever work-up" (FFWU). Investigators reviewed 253 fevers in 155 patients; sign-out instructions were available for 204 fevers. Residents evaluated the patient in person in 29 (11%) episodes. The most common tests ordered were: Blood cultures (48%), urinalysis (UA) with reflex culture (34%), and chest X-ray (30%). If the sign-out advised an FFWU, residents were more likely to order blood cultures [odds ratio (OR) 14.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.52-28.90], UA with reflex culture (OR 12.07, 95% CI 5.56-23.23), chest X-ray (OR 16.55, 95% CI 7.03-39.94), lactate (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.47-7.55), and complete blood count (CBC) (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.17-8.51). In a multivariable regression, predictors of the number of tests ordered included hospital location, resident training level, timing of previous blood culture, in-person evaluation, escalation to a higher level of care, and sign-out instructions. Sign-out instructions and a few patient factors significantly impacted cross-cover resident diagnostic test ordering for overnight fevers. This practice can be targeted in resident education to improve diagnostic reasoning and stewardship.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Howard-Anderson, J., Schwab, K. E., Chang, S., Wilhalme, H., Graber, C. J., & Quinn, R. (2019). Internal medicine residents’ evaluation of fevers overnight. Diagnosis, 6(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2018-0066

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free