Evolving Best Practice for Take-Home Cancer Drugs

PURPOSE

Take-home cancer drugs (THCDs) have become a standard treatment of many cancers. Robust guidelines have been developed for intravenous chemotherapy drugs, but few exist for THCDs with a focus on decentralized models. Hence, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) established the Oncology Pharmacy Task Force (OPTF) to develop consensus-based recommendations on best practices for THCDs to ensure that patients receive safe, consistent, high-quality care in the community once they leave the cancer center/practice with a prescription.

METHODS

The OPTF included 34 members with comprehensive representation. Guidance from leading authorities was extracted through literature review, thematically analyzed, and synthesized to develop 29 recommendations. The consensus process (> 70% agreement) included a three-step modified Delphi method followed by an extensive review process.

RESULTS

Sixteen recommendations were developed: training and education for providers (2), drug access (1), prescribing (4), patient and family/caregiver education (3), communication (1), dispensing (3), monitoring for patient adherence and adverse effects (1), and incident reporting (1).

CONCLUSION

Through a rigorous methodology, the OPTF derived a robust set of recommendations similar to the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society and ASCO/National Community Oncology Dispensing Association guidelines, further validating and strengthening the applicability across multiple jurisdictions, including those with decentralized models. Unique aspects in a decentralized model include the need for two pharmacy professionals, with one doing cognitive verification of the script and the other dispensing the medication; moreover, they optimize interprofessional communication between community providers and the cancer center/practice health care team.

Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in overviews of reviews: a methodological study

Background

When conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews.

Methods

A set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking.

Results

Inclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0–90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2–94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0–99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5–98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1–99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC.

Conclusions

MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.

Misreading Injectable Medications-Causes and Solutions: An Integrative Literature Review

BACKGROUND

This integrative review examines research identifying the misreading of injectable medications as a cause of medication error in hospitals, factors affecting injectable medication visibility leading to medication errors, and interventions to increase the readability of injectable medications. Signal detection theory (SDT) is applied to explain why visual enhancement of injectable medications may improve accuracy of administration.

METHODS

Academic health databases were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2019. An integrative review methodology permitted exploration and critique of both theoretical and empirical literature.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies reported that misreading injectable medications contributed to medication errors. Five studies investigated interventions to improve visualization of injectable medications. SDT suggested three factors may contribute to misreading injectable medications: (1) environmental light levels, (2) medication labels, and (3) clinician factors.

CONCLUSION

Although the literature on this topic was limited and not definitive, results of this review indicated possible ways to improve practice and targets for future research to reduce medication errors due to misreading injectable medication labels.

2016 Updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards, Including Standards for Pediatric Oncology

Purpose

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards and to highlight standards for pediatric oncology.

Methods

The ASCO/ONS Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards were first published in 2009 and updated in 2011 to include inpatient settings. A subsequent 2013 revision expanded the standards to include the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy. A joint ASCO/ONS workshop with stakeholder participation, including that of the Association of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Nurses and American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, was held on May 12, 2015, to review the 2013 standards. An extensive literature search was subsequently conducted, and public comments on the revised draft standards were solicited.

Results

The updated 2016 standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include pediatric oncology and to introduce new standards: most notably, two-person verification of chemotherapy preparation processes, administration of vinca alkaloids via minibags in facilities in which intrathecal medications are administered, and labeling of medications dispensed from the health care setting to be taken by the patient at home. The standards were reordered and renumbered to align with the sequential processes of chemotherapy prescription, preparation, and administration. Several standards were separated into their respective components for clarity and to facilitate measurement of adherence to a standard.

Conclusion

As oncology practice has changed, so have chemotherapy administration safety standards. Advances in technology, cancer treatment, and education and training have prompted the need for periodic review and revision of the standards. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/chemo-standards.

2016 Updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards, Including Standards for Pediatric Oncology

Purpose

To update the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards and to highlight standards for pediatric oncology.

Methods

The ASCO/ONS Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards were first published in 2009 and updated in 2011 to include inpatient settings. A subsequent 2013 revision expanded the standards to include the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy. A joint ASCO/ONS workshop with stakeholder participation, including that of the Association of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Nurses and American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, was held on May 12, 2015, to review the 2013 standards. An extensive literature search was subsequently conducted, and public comments on the revised draft standards were solicited.

Results

The updated 2016 standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include pediatric oncology and to introduce new standards: most notably, two-person verification of chemotherapy preparation processes, administration of vinca alkaloids via minibags in facilities in which intrathecal medications are administered, and labeling of medications dispensed from the health care setting to be taken by the patient at home. The standards were reordered and renumbered to align with the sequential processes of chemotherapy prescription, preparation, and administration. Several standards were separated into their respective components for clarity and to facilitate measurement of adherence to a standard.

Conclusion

As oncology practice has changed, so have chemotherapy administration safety standards. Advances in technology, cancer treatment, and education and training have prompted the need for periodic review and revision of the standards. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/chemo-standards .

Using Breakthrough Series Collaborative Methodology to Improve Safe Delivery of Chemotherapy in Ontario

Participation in a collaborative enabled local interdisciplinary teams to develop processes and structures to support ongoing quality improvement, including formation of a sustainable structure for knowledge translation and exchange, but lack of a shared provincial target limited overall evaluation.