Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population

Active monitoring of antifungal adverse events in hospitalized patients based on Global Trigger Tool method

Background

The increasing prevalence of fungal infections necessitates broader use of antifungal medications. However, the prevalence of adverse drug events (ADEs) restricts their clinical application. This study aimed to develop a reliable ADEs trigger for antifungals to enable proactive ADEs monitoring, serving as a reference for ADEs prevention and control.

Methods

This investigation comprises two phases. Initially, the trigger was established via a literature review, extraction of relevant items, and refinement through Delphi expert consultation. Subsequently, the validity of the trigger was assessed by analyzing hospital records of antifungal drug users from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. The correlation between each trigger signal and ADEs occurrence was examined, and the sensitivity and specificity of the trigger were evaluated through the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Additionally, risk factors contributing to adverse drug events (ADEs) resulting from antifungal use were analyzed. Results: Twenty-one preliminary triggers were refined into 21 final triggers after one expert round. In the retrospective analysis, the positive trigger rate was 65.83%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 28.75%. The incidence of ADEs in inpatients was 28.75%, equating to 44.58 ADEs per 100 admissions and 33.04 ADEs per 1,000 patient days. Predominant ADEs categories included metabolic disturbances, gastrointestinal damage, and skin rashes. ADEs severity was classified into 36 cases at grade 1, 160 at grade 2, and 18 at grade 3. The likelihood of ADEs increased with longer stays, more positive triggers, and greater comorbidity counts.

Conclusion

This study underscores the effectiveness of the GTT in enhancing ADEs detection during antifungal medication use, thereby confirming its value as a monitoring tool.

Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in patients with cancer: current knowledge and future directions

Patients with cancer experience higher rates of preventable harm from hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (haBSIs) and central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) compared with the general hospital population. The prevention of haBSIs and CLABSIs in patients with cancer is an urgent priority, and requires standardized surveillance and reporting efforts. The application of haBSI and CLABSI definitions, classification systems and surveillance strategies for patients with cancer is complex, and there is wide variation in clinical practice. Existing systems were not designed explicitly for patients with cancer, and have different strengths and weaknesses in the cancer setting. For these reasons, epidemiological estimates of haBSIs and CLABSIs in patients with cancer also require careful interpretation. This complexity can be a barrier to identifying appropriate targets for intervention and reducing preventable harm. This review provides an overview of key concepts and challenges in haBSI surveillance and prevention specific to patients with cancer. In addition, this review summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used surveillance definitions and denominators in the setting of cancer care; existing surveillance practice; epidemiology of haBSIs and CLABSIs; prevention strategies; and current knowledge gaps. A global collaborative effort to harmonize the surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in patients with cancer would be invaluable to improve the accuracy and utility of existing data, advance efforts to prevent hospital-acquired infections, and improve patient safety.

Prevalence of Triggers and Patient Harm Identified by Global Trigger Tool in Specialized Palliative Care

Background: Global trigger tool (GTT) was developed for identification of patient harm. In palliative patients deterioration can be expected, and there are no data on whether cases classified as "patient harm" actually represents a potential for improved patient safety. Objectives: The primary aim was to test the performance and suitability of GTT in palliative care patients. The secondary aim was to pilot triggers for substandard palliative care. Design and Measurements: GTT was applied in 113 consecutive patients at a palliative ward at a Norwegian university hospital. Cases of patient harm were further evaluated to decide if the case was (a) a natural part of the disease trajectory or (b) a foreseeable consequence of treatment decisions. Potential triggers for substandard palliative care were tested. Results: Two hundred twelve triggers (1.9 per hospitalization) and 26 cases of patient harm were identified. The positive predictive value (PPV) for identifying patient harm was 0.12. The most prevalent harm was pressure ulcers (8.8%). Of the 26 cases of patient harm, 6 cases were a natural part of the disease trajectory and 10 consequences of treatment decisions. In 21 (18%) patients triggers being piloted for substandard palliative care were present, identifying 9 cases of substandard palliative care. The highest PPV (0.67) was observed for "Cessation of antibiotics less than 5 days before death." Conclusions: With the exception of pressure ulcers, GTT triggers were infrequent or had a very poor PPV for patient harm. Triggers related to overtreatment might be suitable for identifying substandard palliative care.

The moderating role of just culture between nursing practice environment and oncology nurses' silent behaviors toward patient safety: A multicentered study

BACKGROUND

Patient safety is a critical part of healthcare delivery that must be prioritized to guarantee optimal patient outcomes. Oncology nursing is a specialized area of nursing that demands great focus on patient safety because of the high-risk nature of this patient group. Nurses play an important role in ensuring that patients receive safe and effective care. However, the nursing practice environment can have a substantial impact on how nurses respond to patient safety problems. A just culture can promote open communication and identify potential safety issues, whereas a culture of silence can have a negative impact on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Firstly, assess the relationship between the nursing practice environment and oncology nurses' silent behavior towards patient safety. Secondly, the interaction effect of just culture as a moderator in this relationship.

METHOD

A cross-sectional, correctional research design was employed. Data was collected from 303 nurses working at the oncology departments of five hospitals in Egypt using three questionnaires. Data was analyzed using SPSS-PROCESS Macro (v4.2).

RESULTS

There was a moderate, negative, and significant correlation between the nurse practice environment and silent behavior of nurses towards patient safety. The interaction effect of just culture with nurse practice environment strengthens this relationship, thus enhancing errors reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasized on the importance of creating a just culture that facilitates open communication and eliminating the potential hazards result from nurses' silence. Thus, oncology nurses must be encouraged to report issues related to patient safety.

Association Between Laboratory Values and Adverse Events in Adults Post-Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant During and After Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between adverse events (AEs) and critical events (CEs) during and after rehabilitation in cancer patients post-hemopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) or bone marrow transplant (BMT) and to identify whether particular laboratory values are associated with increased risk of AEs or CEs.

DESIGN

A retrospective chart review (2012-2017) of hospitalized patients ages 18-75 years who received a diagnosis of cancer and BMT or HSCT receiving rehabilitation services SETTING: Urban Midwest tertiary, research and academic hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 99 hospitalized adults with HSCT or BMT participated in 300 rehabilitation sessions.

INTERVENTIONS

Physical or occupational therapy using a symptom-based approach in which patient symptoms were monitored and therapy was adjusted in real time MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of AEs or CEs occurring during or within 48 hours of rehabilitation.

RESULTS

A total of 300 rehabilitation sessions were carried out where 99.7% had 1 or more laboratory values outside reference range. In only 3.3% of therapy sessions an AE occurred during or within 2 hours of rehabilitation. Within 48 hours postrehabilitation, AEs occurred in 22.3% and CEs in 4%. No laboratory value was significantly associated with increased risk of AEs or CEs during rehabilitation. A hemoglobin <8.0 g/dL conferred an increased risk of AEs (odds ratio [OR], 2.85-6.89) depending on timeframe analyzed and overall risk of CE (OR, 3.75). Lower hemoglobin levels (<7.5 g/dL and <7.0 g/dL) did not increase this risk. Low platelets (<25 k/μL) increased the risk of AEs on day 1, 2 and overall (OR, 2.5-2.72) and overall risk of CEs (OR, 6.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Our research demonstrates a low rate of AEs and CEs during or within 2 hours of rehabilitation but supports the need to monitor patients when hemoglobin is <8 g/dL or platelets are <25 k/μL due to the increased risk of events.

Clinical and economic impact of clinical oncology pharmacy in cancer patients receiving injectable anticancer treatments: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Clinical pharmacy can reduce drug-related iatrogenesis by improving the management of adverse effects of drugs, limiting drug-drug interactions, and improving patient adherence. Given the vulnerability of cancer patients and the toxicity of injectable anticancer drugs, clinical pharmacy service (CPS) could provide a significant clinical benefit in cancer care. This review aims to synthesize existing evidence on clinical pharmacy's impact on patients treated with intravenous anticancer drugs.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed/Medline database from January 2000 to December 2021, associating the keywords: clinical pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, pharmacist, oncology, and chemotherapy. To be eligible for inclusion, studies have to report clinical pharmaceutical services for patients treated with intravenous chemotherapy with a clinical and/or economic impact.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies met the selection criteria. Various CPS were reported: medication reconciliation, medication review, and pharmaceutical interview with patient. There was a lack of randomized study (n = 3; 7.3%). In one randomized controlled trial, pharmaceutical intervention significantly improved quality of life of patients receiving pharmaceutical care during injectable anticancer drugs courses. Economical results appear to show positive impact of clinical pharmacy with cost savings reported from 3112.87$ to 249 844€. Although most studies were non-comparative, they highlighted that clinical pharmacy tend to limit chemotherapy side effects and drug-related problems, improve quality of life and satisfaction of patients and healthcare professional, and a positive economic impact.

CONCLUSION

Clinical pharmacy can reduce adverse drug events in cancer patients. More robust and economic evaluations are still required to support its development in everyday practice.

Perceived injustice and its impact on psychological distress in cancer patients and survivors

PURPOSE

Perceived injustice is a novel psychosocial construct that reflects negative cognitive appraisals of unfairness, externalized blame and the irreparability and severity of one's loss. Previous research has highlighted the negative impact of perceived injustice on recovery and mental health outcomes, particularly in pain-related samples. This study aimed to (i) explore the role of perceived injustice on psychological outcomes in a general cancer population and (ii) describe demographic and psychosocial characteristics associated with perceptions of injustice.

METHODS

The study employed a cross-sectional, observational design. Using a purposive convenience sampling technique, individuals that have or have had cancer completed an online survey assessing perceived injustice (IEQ), psychological distress (HADS), mental adjustment to cancer (Mini-MAC) and satisfaction with care (PSCC) (N = 121).

RESULTS

Levels of perceived injustice were high with 43.2% of the sample scoring in the clinical range. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that perceived injustice contributed unique variance to the prediction of anxiety and depression. Low satisfaction with care, being under the age of 40 and not having children were identified as significant predictors of perceived injustice. Satisfaction with care did not significantly moderate the association between perceived injustice and mental health outcomes but directly impacted anxiety levels.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients reporting high levels of perceived injustice are at greater risk of feeling psychologically distressed. Prevention and management of injustice perceptions may require interventions targeting specific negative attributions, as well as cancer care in general. Further implications for healthcare practice are discussed.

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely.

Objective

This study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

To identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review.

Results

Screening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9–37.5; I² = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4–164.7. Overall studies’ risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation.

Conclusion

Estimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.

Comparison of a Voluntary Safety Reporting System to a Global Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in an Oncology Population

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of research on adverse event (AE) detection in oncology patients, despite the propensity for iatrogenic harm. Two common methods include voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and chart review tools, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Our objective was to compare frequency and type of AEs detected by a modified GTT compared with VSR for identifying AEs in oncology patients in a larger clinical trial.

METHODS

Patients across 6 oncology units (from July 1, 2013, through May 29, 2015) were randomly selected. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted by a team of nurses and physicians to identify AEs using the GTT. The VSR system was queried by the department of quality and safety of the hospital. Adverse event frequencies, type, and harm code for both methods were compared.

RESULTS

The modified GTT detected 0.90 AEs per patient (79 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.71-1.12] AEs per patient) that were predominantly medication AEs (53/79); more than half of the AEs caused harm to the patients (41/79, 52%), but only one quarter were preventable (21/79; 27%). The VSR detected 0.24 AEs per patient (21 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.15-0.37] AEs per patient), a large plurality of which were medication/intravenous related (8/21); more than half did not cause harm (70%). Only 2% of the AEs (2/100) were detected by both methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the modified GTT nor the VSR system alone is sufficient for detecting AEs in oncology patient populations. Further studies exploring methods such as automated AE detection from electronic health records and leveraging patient-reported AEs are needed.

A Risk-Factor Model for Antineoplastic Drug-Induced Serious Adverse Events in Cancer Inpatients: A Retrospective Study Based on the Global Trigger Tool and Machine Learning

The objective of this study was to apply a machine learning method to evaluate the risk factors associated with serious adverse events (SAEs) and predict the occurrence of SAEs in cancer inpatients using antineoplastic drugs. A retrospective review of the medical records of 499 patients diagnosed with cancer admitted between January 1 and December 31, 2017, was performed. First, the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) was used to actively monitor adverse drug events (ADEs) and SAEs caused by antineoplastic drugs and take the number of positive triggers as an intermediate variable. Subsequently, risk factors with statistical significance were selected by univariate analysis and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) analysis. Finally, using the risk factors after the LASSO analysis as covariates, a nomogram based on a logistic model, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), categorical boosting (CatBoost), adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), light-gradient-boosting machine (LightGBM), random forest (RF), gradient-boosting decision tree (GBDT), decision tree (DT), and ensemble model based on seven algorithms were used to establish the prediction models. A series of indicators such as the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and the area under the PR curve (AUPR) was used to evaluate the model performance. A total of 94 SAE patients were identified in our samples. Risk factors of SAEs were the number of triggers, length of stay, age, number of combined drugs, ADEs occurred in previous chemotherapy, and sex. In the test cohort, a nomogram based on the logistic model owns the AUROC of 0.799 and owns the AUPR of 0.527. The GBDT has the best predicting abilities (AUROC = 0.832 and AUPR = 0.557) among the eight machine learning models and was better than the nomogram and was chosen to establish the prediction webpage. This study provides a novel method to accurately predict SAE occurrence in cancer inpatients.

Evaluating the role of perceived injustice in mental health outcomes in cervical cancer care

Purpose

Perceived injustice is a novel psychosocial construct which reflects negative cognitive appraisals of blame, unfairness, and the severity and irreparability of one’s loss. Experiences of injustice are increasingly recognised as a key determinant of recovery outcomes in healthcare. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of perceived injustice on psychological outcomes amongst a group of cancer patients and survivors who received false-negative smear results under a National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (CervicalCheck).

Methods

Women who received false-negative smear results who were involved in the CervicalCheck controversy in Ireland completed online measures of perceived injustice (IEQ), psychological distress (depression and anxiety as measured by the HADS), and satisfaction with care (PSCC) (n = 144).

Results

Rates of psychological distress in this sample were high, with 76% scoring in the clinical range for anxiety, 51% in the clinical range for depression, and 88% in the clinical range for perceived injustice. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that perceived injustice contributed unique variance to the prediction of depression and anxiety. Satisfaction with care significantly moderated the association between perceived injustice and depression.

Conclusions

Cancer patients who report high levels of perceived injustice are at greater risk for experiencing psychological distress. The relationship between perceived injustice and depression may vary as a function of satisfaction with care. Addressing issues of perceived injustice in the psychosocial and rehabilitative care of cancer patients may support the early identification of those at risk of significant psychological distress and enhance intervention success. Implications for policy and practice in healthcare are discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07060-z.

Incidence, severity, and preventability of adverse events during the induction of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in a tertiary care pediatric hospital in Mexico

Healthcare-associated adverse events represent a heavy burden of symptoms for pediatric oncology patients. Their description allows knowing the safety and quality of the care processes in countries with limited resources. This study aimed to describe the incidence, types, severity, and preventability of adverse events occurring in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia during the induction phase in a tertiary care pediatric hospital in Mexico. This study analyzed a cohort based on medical records of between 2015 and 2017. Initially, information on patients and adverse events was collected; subsequently, two pediatric oncologist reviewers independently classified adverse events, severity and preventability. Agreement between reviewers was evaluated. Adverse events incidence rates were estimated by type, severity, and preventability. One-hundred and eighty-one pediatric patients pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were studied. An overall adverse events rate of 51.8 per 1000 patient-days was estimated, involving 81.2% of patients during induction. Most adverse events were severe or higher (52.6%). Infectious processes were the most common severe or higher adverse event (30.5%). The presence of adverse events caused 80.2% of hospital readmissions. Of the adverse events, 10.5% were considered preventable and 53.6% could be ameliorable in severity. Improving the safety and quality of the care processes of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia is possible, and this should contribute to the mitigation and prevention of adverse events associated morbidity and mortality during the remission induction phase.

Association and risk factors of healthcare-associated infection and burden of illness among chemotherapy-induced ulcerative mucositis patients

Objectives

To evaluate the association and risk factors of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) and burden of illness among chemotherapy-induced ulcerative mucositis (UM) patients.

Methods

For this research, US National Inpatient Sample database 2017 was utilized to study UM patients. The association of healthcare-associated infection-related burden of illness among UM patients was assessed on the outcome––length of hospital stays (LOS), total charges, in-hospital mortality, and discharge disposition.

Result

In 2017, there were 11,350 adult (> 18 years of age) UM patients, among them there were 415 (3.5%) HAI. After adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics, UM patients with HAI were most likely to have higher total charges and longer LOS (1.91; 95% CIs: 1.51–2.41; P < 0.001; 1.84; 95% CIs: 1.53–2.21; P < 0.001) than those without HAI. Further, mortality was not significantly different. UM patients with HAI were less likely to have higher burden of illness who were younger, females, those living in non-metropolitan or micropolitan counties, and those with lower co-morbidity score. Additionally, UM patients with HAI were more likely to discharge to skilled nursing facility (SNF), intermediate care facility (ICF), and another type of facility (ATF), (aOR = 2.58 (1.16–5.76), P = 0.02), than they were to discharge to self-care or home care.

Conclusion

UM patients with HAI were more likely to have higher burden of illness and more likely to discharged to the SNF, ICF, and ATF rather than to home or self-care.

Clinical relevance

UM patients when associated with HAI have higher burden of illness; a tailored approach to oral care might prevent HAIs and burden of illness among UM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-021-04106-0.

Palliative Thoracic Radiotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Outpatients: Reasons for Unplanned Hospitalization and Its Impact on Survival

Background

The aims of the study were to examine the rates of and reasons for unplanned hospitalization after start of palliative radiotherapy or chemoradiation (CRT), and to study whether unplanned hospitalization deteriorates patients’ prognosis. In addition, risk factors were identified.

Methods

A retrospective review of 136 patients treated with palliative radiotherapy or CRT was performed. Inclusion criteria were prescribed total dose at least 30 Gy and outpatient at the start of treatment. Uni- and multivariate analyses were employed.

Results

Fifty-eight patients (43%) were hospitalized within 3 months from start of radiotherapy or CRT. Their median overall survival was 6.7 months as compared to 11.1 months in non-hospitalized patients (P = 0.09). The median length of hospitalization was 8 days (range 1 - 61). In patients with possibly treatment-related hospitalization (n = 32), median survival was 5.0 months, significantly shorter than the 11.1 months observed in the remaining patients (P = 0.006). In multivariate analysis, only one variable was significantly associated with higher risk of unplanned hospitalization: previous hospitalization in the last 4 weeks before commencing radiotherapy or CRT.

Conclusions

Unplanned hospitalization occurred frequently in a standard care setting without early involvement of a dedicated palliative team. Patients with preceding hospitalization might represent a group that is particularly vulnerable, thus qualifying for a targeted intervention aiming at continued outpatient care.

Resilience From a Stakeholder Perspective: The Role of Next of Kin in Cancer Care

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to provide new knowledge on how next of kin are co-creators of resilient performance, as seen from the viewpoint of the healthcare personnel and managers. The following research question guided the study: How are next of kin involved in shaping resilience within cancer care in hospitals?

METHODS

The design of the study is a case study of cancer departments in two Norwegian hospitals. Data collection included a total of 32 qualitative semistructured interviews at two organizational levels (managers and staff). The data were analyzed by ways of a directed content analysis according to Hollnagel's Resilience in Health Care framework of resilience potentials (anticipate, monitor, respond, learn).

RESULTS

Next of kin are involved in creating and maintaining resilience in cancer care by different kind of activities and in-depth insight into the patient's condition, which strengthen all resilience potentials of responding, anticipation, monitoring, and learning. We have identified nine areas in which next of kin are co-creators in shaping resilience. Next of kin are important stakeholders, both as safety experts and as safety resources, helping healthcare professionals provide quality and safety in the patient care process under difficult conditions. Next of kin's knowledge of the patient's history, their observation of the patient over time within the hospital, at home, and across care transitions are key elements of their contribution.

CONCLUSIONS

Next of kin complement healthcare professionals in all four potentials for resilient performance. The study suggests that the Resilience in Health Care framework takes into account the role of next of kin, as a stakeholder potential, because this has not previously been sufficiently considered.

Developing a Next-of-Kin Involvement Guide in Cancer Care-Results From a Consensus Process

Background

In hospital cancer care, there is no set standard for next-of-kin involvement in improving the quality of care and patient safety. There is therefore a growing need for tools and methods that can guide this complex area.

Objective

The aim of this study was to present the results from a consensus-based participatory process of designing a guide for next-of-kin involvement in hospital cancer care.

Method

A consensus process based on a modified Nominal group technique was applied with 20 stakeholder participants from 2 Norwegian university hospitals.

Result

The participants agreed on the 5 most important priorities for hospital cancer care services when involving next-of-kin. The results showed that next-of-kin stakeholders, when proactively involved, are important resources for the patient and healthcare professionals in terms of contribution to quality and safety in hospitals. Suggested means of involving next-of-kin were closer interaction with external support bodies, integration in clinical pathways, adjusted information, and training healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

In this study, we identified topics and elements to include in a next-of-kin involvement guide to support quality and safety in hospital cancer care. The study raises awareness of the complex area of next-of-kin involvement and contributes with theory development and knowledge translation in an involvement guide tailored for use by healthcare professionals and managers in everyday clinical practice.

Implications for Practice

Service providers can use the guide to formulate intentions and make decisions with suggestions and priorities or as a reflexive tool for organizational improvement.

Adverse events in deceased hospitalised cancer patients as a measure of quality and safety in end-of-life cancer care

BACKGROUND

Anticancer treatment exposes patients to negative consequences such as increased toxicity and decreased quality of life, and there are clear guidelines recommending limiting use of aggressive anticancer treatments for patients near end of life. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life and adverse events contributing to death and elucidate how adverse events can be used as a measure of quality and safety in end-of-life cancer care.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of 247 deceased hospitalised cancer patients at three hospitals in Norway in 2012 and 2013. The Global Trigger Tool method were used to identify adverse events. We used Poisson regression and binary logistic regression to compare adverse events and association with use of anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life.

RESULTS

30% of deceased hospitalised cancer patients received some kind of anticancer treatment during the last 30 days of life, mainly systemic anticancer treatment. These patients had 62% more adverse events compared to patients not being treated last 30 days, 39 vs. 24 adverse events per 1000 patient days (p < 0.001, OR 1.62 (1.23-2.15). They also had twice the odds of an adverse event contributing to death compared to patients without such treatment, 33 vs. 18% (p = 0.045, OR 1.85 (1.01-3.36)). Receiving follow up by specialist palliative care reduced the rate of AEs per 1000 patient days in both groups by 29% (p = 0.02, IRR 0.71, CI 95% 0.53-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life is associated with a significantly increased rate of adverse events and related mortality. Patients receiving specialist palliative care had significantly fewer adverse events, supporting recommendations of early integration of palliative care in a patient safety perspective.

Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The occurrence rate of adverse events (AEs) related to care among hospitalized oncology patients in Switzerland remains unknown. The primary objective of this study was to describe, for the first time, the occurrence rate, type, severity of harm, and preventability of AEs related to care, reported in health records of hospitalized hematological and solid-tumor cancer patients in three Swiss hospitals.

METHODS

Using an adapted version of the validated Global Trigger Tool (GTT) from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, we conducted a retrospective record review of patients discharged from oncology units over a 6-week period during 2018. Our convenience sample included all records from adult patients (≥18 years of age), diagnosed with cancer, and hospitalized (>24 hours). Per the GTT method, two trained nurses independently assessed patient records to identify AEs using triggers, and physicians from the included units analyzed the consensus of the two nurses. Together, they assessed the severity and preventability of each AE.

RESULTS

From the sample of 224 reviewed records, we identified 661 triggers and 169 AEs in 94 of them (42%). Pain related to care was the most frequent AE (n = 29), followed by constipation (n = 17). AEs rates were 75.4 per 100 admissions and 106.6 per 1000 patient days. Most of the identified AEs (78%) caused temporary harm to the patient and required an intervention. Among AEs during hospitalization (n = 125), 76 (61%) were considered not preventable, 28 (22%) preventable, and 21 (17%) undetermined.

CONCLUSION

About half of the hospitalized oncology patients suffered from at least one AE related to care during their hospitalization. Pain, constipation, and nosocomial infections were the most frequent AEs. It is, therefore, essential to identify AEs to guide future clinical practice initiatives to ensure patient safety.

Estimating cost implications of potentially avoidable hospitalizations among Oncology Care Model patients with prostate cancer

Purpose/Objectives

We sought to estimate the expected cost savings generated if a set of potentially avoidable hospitalizations (PAHs) among oncology care model (OCM) patients with prostate cancer were shifted to an acute care model in the outpatient setting.

Methods

We previously identified a set of 28 PAHs among OCM prostate cancer patients. Outpatient management costs for a characteristically similar cohort of cancer patients were obtained from our institution's ambulatory acute-care Oncology Care Unit (OCU). We excluded OCU visits resulting in hospitalization, involving non-cancer diagnoses, and those missing clinical/financial information. Exact-matching based on the strata of age, categorically-defined presenting complaint, and systemic disease was used to match PAHs to OCU acute care visits. PAH costs obtained from OCM data were compared to costs from matched OCU visits.

Results

We identified 130 acute care OCU visits, of which 47 met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four PAHs (89%) matched to 26 of these OCU visits. PAHs accounted for 5.8% of OCM expenditures during our study period. The mean inpatient cost among matched PAHs was $15,885 compared to $6,227 for matched OCU visits. Boot strapping within each match stratum produced a mean estimated cost savings of $12,151 (95% CI $10,488 to $13,814) per PAH. We estimate this per event savings to yield a 4.4% (95% CI 3.8% to 5.0%) an overall spending decrement for OCM prostate cancer episodes.

Conclusions

PAHs contribute meaningfully to costs of care in oncology. Investment in specialized ambulatory acute care services for oncology patients could lead to substantial cost savings.

Contribution of adverse events to death of hospitalised patients

Background

There is no standardised method to investigate death as a patient safety indicator and we need valid and reliable measurements to use adverse events contributing to death as a quality measure.

Objective

To investigate the contribution of severe adverse events to death in hospitalised patients and clarify methodological differences using the Global Trigger Tool method on all inpatient deaths compared with a sample of general hospitalised patients.

Method

Retrospective records reviewing using the Global Trigger Tool method.

Results

In 0.3% of hospital admissions, adverse events contribute to inpatient death. Patients who die in hospital have twice the rate of adverse events per 1000 patient days compared with general patients, 76.7 vs 36.5 (p<0.001, RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.47). Patients dying in hospital experience seven times the rate of severe adverse events, 38.4% vs 5.2% (p<0.001, RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.47). For 86 out of 377 inpatient deaths, the adverse event is so severe that it contributes to death. 27.9% of severe adverse events contributing to death originate in primary care. Lower respiratory infections (p<0.001, RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51), medication harm (p<0.001, RR 5.21, 95% CI 3.04 to 8.94) and pressure ulcers (p=0.04, RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.85) are significantly more frequent for inpatient deaths than in the general sample of hospital patients.

Conclusions

Patients dying in hospitals experience seven times the rate of severe adverse events. Reviewing all inpatient death by the Global Trigger Tool method discloses new valid and reliable data of severe adverse events contributing to death which otherwise would be undetected.

Medication administration errors and mortality: Incidents reported in England and Wales between 2007 ̶ 2016

BACKGROUND

Medication administration errors may contribute to patient mortality, thus additional understanding of such incidents is required.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse medication administration errors reported in acute care resulting in death, to identify the drugs concerned, and to describe medication administration error characteristics (location of error, error type, patient's age) by drug group.

METHODS

Medication administration errors reported in acute care in 2007 ̶ 2016 (n = 517,384) were obtained from the National Reporting and Learning System for England and Wales. Incidents reported as resulting in death (n = 229) were analysed. Drugs were classified by two researchers using the British National Formulary. Drug categories were described by medication administration errors' year, location, patient age, and error category based on the incidents' original classification.

RESULTS

Errors were most often reported on wards (66.4%, n = 152), and in patients aged over 75 years (41.5%, n = 95). The most common error category was omitted medicine or ingredient (31.4%, n = 72); most common drug groups were cardiovascular (20.1%, n = 46) and nervous system (10.0%, n = 23). Most errors in patients under 12 years concerned drugs to treat infection; cardiovascular drugs were most common among other age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to prevent these most serious of medication administration errors, interventions should focus on avoiding dose omissions, and administration of drugs for patients over 75 years old, as well as safe administration of parenteral anticoagulants and antibacterial drugs.

Hospital-Acquired Infections in Critically Ill Patients With Cancer

Hospital-acquired infections are a common and costly problem facing critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Critically ill patients with cancer are a particularly vulnerable subpopulation who possesses additional, nonmodifiable risk factors for developing these infections and, in many cases, are at increased risk of death as a result. This review will describe the most common nosocomial infections patients with cancer acquire while in the ICU: ventilator-associated events, central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and Clostridium difficile infection.

Next-of-kin involvement in improving hospital cancer care quality and safety - a qualitative cross-case study as basis for theory development

Background

Next-of-kin are an extension of healthcare professionals in all stages of cancer care. They offer care activities such as interpretations of symptoms, and reporting of negative or adverse effects of treatment, without any professional knowledge or skills. Their participation is often expected from healthcare professionals, managers, or the patient. However, there is limited knowledge of next-of-kin’s role in and contribution to quality and safety improvement in hospital cancer care. The aim of this study was to explore how managers and healthcare professionals understand the role of next-of-kin in cancer care, and what methods they use for next-of-kin involvement.

Methods

The study design was a comparative multiple embedded case study of cancer departments in two Norwegian university hospitals. Data collection methods consist of qualitative interviews with managers (13) and healthcare professionals (19) collected in 2016, and document analysis of policy documents and regulation. The interviews were analyzed according to a directed content analysis approach guided by the theoretical framework ‘Organizing for Quality’.

Results

Both hospitals have a strategy to involve next-of-kin in treatment and care but have no formal way of doing so. Managers and healthcare professionals in the two hospitals illuminated nine areas where next-of-kin are important stakeholders in improving quality and safety. These nine areas (e.g. nutrition, observations, transitions, pain treatment, information, palliative and terminal care) are common across the two hospitals. Key challenges in the next-of-kin involvement pertain to insufficient physical working conditions and room facilities, and lack of continuity of experienced nurses and consultants.

Conclusion

Hospital employees and managers regard next-of-kin as a safety net or a buffer that cannot be replaced by other stakeholders. This study shows a close collaboration between patient, next-of-kin and healthcare professionals in cancer care, but more effort should be invested in more systematic approaches for next-of-kin involvement in quality and safety improvement such as a guide for managers and healthcare professionals on methods and areas of involvement.