Practice guidelines for evaluating new fever in critically ill adult patients

Naomi P. O'Grady, Philip S. Barie, John Bartlett, Thomas Bleck, Glenda Garvey, Judith Jacobi, Peter Linden, Dennis G. Maki, Myung Nam, William Pasculle, Michael D. Pasquale, Debra L. Tribett, Henry Masur

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: The development of practice guidelines for evaluating adult patients who develop new fever in the intensive care unit (ICU) for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. Participants: A task force of 13 experts in disciplines related to critical care medicine, infectious diseases, and surgery was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Disease Society of America. Evidence: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (articles retrieved with use of MEDLINE or textbooks) from which consensus would be sought. The published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. Consensus process: The task force met several times in person and twice monthly by teleconference over a 1-year period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the experts' opinions. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. Conclusions: The panel concluded that because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in an adult patient in the ICU should trigger a careful clinical assessment rather than automatic orders for laboratory and radiological tests. A cost-conscious approach to obtaining diagnostic studies should be undertaken if they are indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic options can be identified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1042-1059
Number of pages18
JournalClinical Infectious Diseases
Volume26
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Advisory Committees
Practice Guidelines
Critical Illness
Consensus
Fever
Intensive Care Units
Infectious Disease Medicine
Telecommunications
Group Processes
Textbooks
Expert Testimony
Critical Care
MEDLINE
Communicable Diseases
Weights and Measures
Costs and Cost Analysis
Infection
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology

Cite this

O'Grady, N. P., Barie, P. S., Bartlett, J., Bleck, T., Garvey, G., Jacobi, J., ... Masur, H. (1998). Practice guidelines for evaluating new fever in critically ill adult patients. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 26(5), 1042-1059.

Practice guidelines for evaluating new fever in critically ill adult patients. / O'Grady, Naomi P.; Barie, Philip S.; Bartlett, John; Bleck, Thomas; Garvey, Glenda; Jacobi, Judith; Linden, Peter; Maki, Dennis G.; Nam, Myung; Pasculle, William; Pasquale, Michael D.; Tribett, Debra L.; Masur, Henry.

In: Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 5, 1998, p. 1042-1059.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

O'Grady, NP, Barie, PS, Bartlett, J, Bleck, T, Garvey, G, Jacobi, J, Linden, P, Maki, DG, Nam, M, Pasculle, W, Pasquale, MD, Tribett, DL & Masur, H 1998, 'Practice guidelines for evaluating new fever in critically ill adult patients', Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1042-1059.
O'Grady NP, Barie PS, Bartlett J, Bleck T, Garvey G, Jacobi J et al. Practice guidelines for evaluating new fever in critically ill adult patients. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 1998;26(5):1042-1059.
O'Grady, Naomi P. ; Barie, Philip S. ; Bartlett, John ; Bleck, Thomas ; Garvey, Glenda ; Jacobi, Judith ; Linden, Peter ; Maki, Dennis G. ; Nam, Myung ; Pasculle, William ; Pasquale, Michael D. ; Tribett, Debra L. ; Masur, Henry. / Practice guidelines for evaluating new fever in critically ill adult patients. In: Clinical Infectious Diseases. 1998 ; Vol. 26, No. 5. pp. 1042-1059.
@article{e7ac46d46ffa4f6cb54bd065bbd41856,
title = "Practice guidelines for evaluating new fever in critically ill adult patients",
abstract = "Objective: The development of practice guidelines for evaluating adult patients who develop new fever in the intensive care unit (ICU) for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. Participants: A task force of 13 experts in disciplines related to critical care medicine, infectious diseases, and surgery was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Disease Society of America. Evidence: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (articles retrieved with use of MEDLINE or textbooks) from which consensus would be sought. The published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. Consensus process: The task force met several times in person and twice monthly by teleconference over a 1-year period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the experts' opinions. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. Conclusions: The panel concluded that because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in an adult patient in the ICU should trigger a careful clinical assessment rather than automatic orders for laboratory and radiological tests. A cost-conscious approach to obtaining diagnostic studies should be undertaken if they are indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic options can be identified.",
author = "O'Grady, {Naomi P.} and Barie, {Philip S.} and John Bartlett and Thomas Bleck and Glenda Garvey and Judith Jacobi and Peter Linden and Maki, {Dennis G.} and Myung Nam and William Pasculle and Pasquale, {Michael D.} and Tribett, {Debra L.} and Henry Masur",
year = "1998",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "1042--1059",
journal = "Clinical Infectious Diseases",
issn = "1058-4838",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Practice guidelines for evaluating new fever in critically ill adult patients

AU - O'Grady, Naomi P.

AU - Barie, Philip S.

AU - Bartlett, John

AU - Bleck, Thomas

AU - Garvey, Glenda

AU - Jacobi, Judith

AU - Linden, Peter

AU - Maki, Dennis G.

AU - Nam, Myung

AU - Pasculle, William

AU - Pasquale, Michael D.

AU - Tribett, Debra L.

AU - Masur, Henry

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - Objective: The development of practice guidelines for evaluating adult patients who develop new fever in the intensive care unit (ICU) for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. Participants: A task force of 13 experts in disciplines related to critical care medicine, infectious diseases, and surgery was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Disease Society of America. Evidence: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (articles retrieved with use of MEDLINE or textbooks) from which consensus would be sought. The published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. Consensus process: The task force met several times in person and twice monthly by teleconference over a 1-year period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the experts' opinions. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. Conclusions: The panel concluded that because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in an adult patient in the ICU should trigger a careful clinical assessment rather than automatic orders for laboratory and radiological tests. A cost-conscious approach to obtaining diagnostic studies should be undertaken if they are indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic options can be identified.

AB - Objective: The development of practice guidelines for evaluating adult patients who develop new fever in the intensive care unit (ICU) for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. Participants: A task force of 13 experts in disciplines related to critical care medicine, infectious diseases, and surgery was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Disease Society of America. Evidence: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (articles retrieved with use of MEDLINE or textbooks) from which consensus would be sought. The published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. Consensus process: The task force met several times in person and twice monthly by teleconference over a 1-year period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the experts' opinions. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. Conclusions: The panel concluded that because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in an adult patient in the ICU should trigger a careful clinical assessment rather than automatic orders for laboratory and radiological tests. A cost-conscious approach to obtaining diagnostic studies should be undertaken if they are indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic options can be identified.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=17344368677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=17344368677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 1042

EP - 1059

JO - Clinical Infectious Diseases

JF - Clinical Infectious Diseases

SN - 1058-4838

IS - 5

ER -