Comparing clinicians' use of an anticoagulation management service and usual care in ambulatory oncology.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus in the oncology community about the optimal model for anticoagulation management of ambulatory cancer patients. To understand oncologists' preferences regarding anticoagulation management, we compared the characteristics of patients referred to an oncology-oriented anticoagulation management service with "usual care" patients managed by the patient's primary oncologist. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review of ambulatory oncology patients' anticoagulation care at a comprehensive cancer center. We examined the characteristics of 33 patients anticoagulated before implementation of a dedicated oncology anticoagulation management service. We compared this group with 33 patients managed by the anticoagulation management service and with 39 usual care patients managed by the primary oncologist after the anticoagulation management service was created. We also examined differences in laboratory test utilization, time in the therapeutic range (for patients anticoagulated with warfarin), and anticoagulation-related adverse events during a 3-month assessment period. RESULTS: Anticoagulation management service patients were more likely to be treated for hematologic malignancies, use erythropoietin stimulating agents, and require warfarin management for previous venous thromboembolic disease compared to usual care patients. In contrast, oncologists were more likely to manage anticoagulation care of patients with advanced solid tumors undergoing active chemotherapy. Anticoagulation management service and usual care patients on warfarin therapy had comparable time in the therapeutic range and complication rates. CONCLUSION: Oncologists selectively referred patients to the anticoagulation management service. Anticoagulation management service patients' warfarin control and complication rates were comparable to care provided by the primary oncologist, suggesting that an oncology-specific anticoagulation management service may be a feasible and effective option for anticoagulation management of ambulatory oncology patients.

The You CAN campaign: teamwork training for patients and families in ambulatory oncology.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations have begun to adapt high-performance teamwork training techniques from aviation to clinical environments. Oncology care is often delivered in multispecialty teams and with the patient's and family's active involvement. To examine the potential value of a patient-oriented teamwork intervention, a teamwork training initiative for oncology patients and their families was developed at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. DEVELOPING THE CAMPAIGN: The content and format of the initiative evolved iteratively on the basis of several core team-training concepts derived from the research literature in health care and aviation. Initially a targeted intervention, the program evolved into a multifaceted campaign that included internal marketing, staff training, and one-on-one patient outreach by a group of volunteers. The You CAN campaign sought to convey a positive and empowering message that encouraged patients to (1) check for hazards in the environment, (2) ask questions of clinicians, and (3) notify staff of safety concerns. IMPLEMENTING THE CAMPAIGN: The You CAN campaignwas conducted from July through September 2007. To assess its progress, patients were surveyed at baseline and during the campaign. On the basis of the survey results, 32% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25%-38%) of the ambulatory clinic population, or 1,145 patients, were exposed to the campaign. Although patients rated the quality of teamwork and communication favorably at both baseline and followup, there was no significant change in the self-reported use of teamwork techniques on a written survey. However, 39% (95% CI: 27%-51%) of those who were exposed to the campaign said that it changed their behavior. DISCUSSION: A training program for patients and their families is feasible in ambulatory oncology and may be applicable to other clinical settings.

Rating recommendations for consumers about patient safety: sense, common sense, or nonsense?

BACKGROUND: Although many organizations offer advice about the consumer's role in improving patient safety, little is known about these recommendations. METHODS: The Internet and medical literature were searched to identify patient safety recommendations for consumers. Recommendations were classified by type and tabulated by frequency. Nine investigators rated each recommendation for the quality of supporting empirical evidence, magnitude of benefit, and likely patient adherence. For a consumer perspective, 22 relatives of the investigators who were also mothers rated each recommendation. RESULTS: Twenty-six organizations identified 160 distinct recommendations; 115 (72%) addressed medication safety, 37 (23%) advised patients about preparation for hospitalization or surgery, and 18 (11%) offered general advice. Organizations most frequently advised patients to make a list of their medications (92% of organizations), to ask questions about their health and treatment (81%), to enlist an advocate (77%), and to learn about possible medication side effects (77%). Investigators assigned high scores to 11 of the 25 most frequently cited recommendations and to 4 of the 25 least common recommendations. There was little association between the frequency with which recommendations were promulgated and investigators' ratings (r = 0.27, p < .001). Investigators' scores correlated with those of the mothers (r = 0.71, p < .001). DISCUSSION: Contrary to expectation, there was little overlap among the 160 recommendations offered by the 26 organizations. Health care organizations offer many patient safety recommendations of limited value. These organizations should offer a concise and coherent set of recommendations on the basis of evidence, magnitude of benefit, and likely adherence.

Perceptions of medical errors in cancer care: an analysis of how the news media describe sentinel events.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the print news media's coverage of sentinel events involving cancer patients. METHODS: Using LexisNexis, we identified English-language newspaper articles covering medical errors in cancer care between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2010. Articles were coded for 3 major themes using a standardized abstraction instrument: narrative statements and point of view most prominently represented, attribution of blame, and orientation toward patient safety. We also abstracted country where the newspaper was published, type of error event, and extent of patient harm. RESULTS: We analyzed 64 articles from 37 print newspaper syndications that circulated in 6 countries/regions. Reports of medical errors rarely were framed from the point of view of a safety expert or the responsible clinician (13% and 3%, respectively) compared with the patient and legal points of view (both 30%). Articles held individual clinicians (41%) and hospital systems (28%) responsible for most errors. Four in 10 articles failed to present medical errors as "systems" problems. Article perspective varied considerably by country, with 53% of articles from the UK and 63% from Australia and New Zealand judged as negatively slanted compared with 14% in the United States and Canada. CONCLUSIONS: In reports of medical errors involving cancer patients, the news media regularly blame individual clinicians for mistakes and fail to present a systems-based understanding of these events.

Using a patient internet portal to prevent adverse drug events: a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in ambulatory care and may result from poor patient-physician communication about medication-related symptoms. A module was developed within an electronic patient portal that was designed to enhance communication about medication symptoms and, in turn, reduce ADEs and health-care utilization. METHODS: The researchers conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial of MedCheck, an automated electronic message generated in a patient Internet portal. MedCheck asked intervention patients if they had filled a recent prescription and if they had experienced any problems with the medication. Patients' responses were forwarded automatically to primary care physicians. The study enrolled 375 intervention patients and 363 controls. After 3 months, the investigators reviewed patients' medical records and conducted telephone interviews to identify ADEs and to assess health-care utilization. RESULTS: Among the 375 intervention patients, 184 (49%) responded to at least 1 MedCheck message. Patients reported 52 unfilled prescriptions and 56 medication problems. Patients responded to 72% of messages within 1 day. There was no statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups in the rate of ADEs, preventable or ameliorable ADEs, serious ADEs, or in subjects' health-care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Internet portals have the potential to enhance patient-physician communication. However, additional development is required to demonstrate that such interventions can improve medication safety or health-care utilization.

US Cancer Center Implementation of ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards.

PURPOSE: Because cancer chemotherapy is a high-risk intervention, ASCO and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) established in 2009 consensus- and evidence-based national standards for the safe administration of chemotherapy. We sought to assess the implementation status of the ASCO/ONS chemotherapy administration safety standards. METHODS: A written survey of chemotherapy practices was sent to National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. Implementation status of each of 31 chemotherapy administration safety standards was self-reported. RESULTS: Forty-four (80%) of 55 eligible centers responded. Although the majority of centers have fully implemented at least half of the standards, only four centers reported full implementation of all 31. Implementation varied by standard, with the poorest implementation of standards that addressed documentation of chemotherapy planning, agreed-on intervals for laboratory testing, and patient education and consent before initiation of oral or infusional chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Given wide variation in the implementation of ASCO/ONS chemotherapy administration safety standards at US cancer centers, there are significant opportunities for improvement.

Assessing the value of electronic prescribing in ambulatory care: a focus group study.

INTRODUCTION: Drug allergy and interaction alerts are a core function of most electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) systems. To characterize the value of e-prescribing and medication safety alerts, especially in small and medium-size practices, we undertook a hypothesis-generating focus group study of Massachusetts clinicians. We sought to understand the reasons for adoption and use of e-prescribing, as well as clinicians' complaints about and perceived benefits of drug allergy and interaction alerts. METHODS: We recruited 25 Massachusetts clinicians to participate in three focus groups regarding the use and value of e-prescribing and medication safety alerts. The participants included high-volume (>100 electronic scripts per month) physicians, nurse practitioners, and practice assistants in family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, and subspecialty practices who used a common commercial e-prescribing system. RESULTS: Most clinicians were in small and medium-size group practices. Participants were, on average, 25 years post-medical school graduation (range 8-36), had used e-prescribing for 2.5 years (range 1.0-5.5), and wrote the majority (89%, range 15-100%) of prescriptions electronically. The participants' decision to adopt e-prescribing was driven largely by financial incentives offered by insurers, and was viewed as a step toward implementation of an electronic medical record. Although participants agreed that the system was easy to learn, few anticipated efficiencies were realized until clinicians configured the device to meet their needs. The participants were ambivalent about whether e-prescribing improved their own or overall office efficiency, and--in the absence of payer incentives--few were willing to pay for the systems out-of-pocket. The most valuable aspects of e-prescribing were the ease of changing doses, renewing prescriptions, ensuring legibility, and transmitting prescriptions to in- and out-of-state pharmacies. Participants were dissatisfied with the unreliability of transmitting prescriptions successfully to the pharmacy, and with their inability to merge duplicate patient entries, to create a comprehensive, allprescriber medication list, to write prescriptions for commonly ordered medications and supplies, and to enter allergy information into the system. Participants were critical of the volume of drug allergy and interaction alerts. Many alerts were of trivial clinical significance or were generated by interactions with out-of-date medications. As a result, many clinicians habitually ignored these alerts. Alerts were most helpful to clinicians who were unfamiliar with a particular drug or patient. Although alerts rarely led the clinicians to abort or alter a prescription, alerts did prompt clinicians to counsel patients about medication side effects, to educate themselves about potential interactions, to check physical examination findings, or to order laboratory tests. Despite problems, few clinicians were willing to forego receiving alerts for fear that they would miss a potentially dangerous drug interaction. CONCLUSION: Electronic prescribing is a potential boon to ambulatory medical practice, although its value may be compromised by inappropriate and irrelevant medication safety alerts and by features of the e-prescribing system that prove burdensome to frontline clinicians. While alerts infrequently result in changed or aborted prescriptions, they may trigger a variety of other provider behaviors that help to ensure safe care.

Clinicians' assessments of electronic medication safety alerts in ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: While electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) systems with drug interaction and allergy alerts promise to improve medication safety in ambulatory care, clinicians often override these safety features. We undertook a study of respondents' satisfaction with e-prescribing systems, their perceptions of alerts, and their perceptions of behavior changes resulting from alerts. METHODS: Random sample survey of 300 Massachusetts ambulatory care clinicians who used a commercial e-prescribing system. RESULTS: A total of 184 respondents completed the survey (61%). Respondents indicated that e-prescribing improved the quality of care delivered (78%), prevented medical errors (83%), and enhanced patient satisfaction (71%) and clinician efficiency (75%). In addition, 35% of prescribers said that electronic alerts caused them to modify a potentially dangerous prescription in the last 30 days. They suggested that alerts also led to other changes in clinical care: counseling patients about potential reactions (49% of respondents), looking up information in medical references (44%), and changing the way a patient was monitored (33%). Altogether, 63% of clinicians reported taking action other than discontinuing or modifying an alerted prescription in the previous month in response to alerts. Despite these benefits, fewer than half of respondents were satisfied with drug interaction and allergy alerts (47%). Problems included alerts triggered by discontinued medications (58%), alerts that failed to account for appropriate drug combinations (46%), and excessive volume of alerts (37%). CONCLUSION: Although clinicians were critical of the quality of e-prescribing alerts, alerts may lead to clinically significant modifications in patient management not readily apparent based on "acceptance" rates.

Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres: questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise current safety practices for the use of oral chemotherapy. DESIGN: Written questionnaire survey of pharmacy directors of cancer centres. SETTING: Comprehensive cancer centres in the United States. RESULTS: Respondents from 42 (78%) of 54 eligible centres completed the survey, after consulting with 89 colleagues. Clinicians at 29 centres used handwritten prescriptions, two used preprinted paper prescriptions, and six used electronic systems for most oral chemotherapy prescribing. For six commonly used oral chemotherapies, on average 10 centres required a diagnosis on the prescription, 11 required the protocol number, four required the cycle number, nine required double checking by a second clinician, 14 required a calculation of body surface area, and 14 required a calculation of dose per square metre of body surface area. Only a third of centres requested patients' written informed consent when oral chemotherapy was given off protocol. Nearly a quarter (10) of centres had no formal process for monitoring patients' adherence. In the past year respondents at 10 centres reported at least one serious adverse drug event related to oral chemotherapy, and respondents at 13 centres reported a serious near miss. CONCLUSION: Few of the safeguards routinely used for infusion chemotherapy have been adopted for oral chemotherapy at US cancer centres. There is currently no consensus at these centres about safe medication practices for oral chemotherapy.