An analysis of medical malpractice claims against medical oncologists from a national database: Implications for safer practice.

Malpractice claims data include valuable information about patient safety. We used mixed methods to analyze claims against medical oncologists (MO) from 2008 to 2019 using a national database. MO claims were compared to a group of other internal medicine subspecialties (OIMS). Logistic regression was used to examine correlates of closing with an indemnity payment. A subset of claims against MO were thematically analyzed using a validated safety incident taxonomy as a framework. 456 claims against MO were compared with 5771 claims against OIMS. MO claims closed with indemnity payments 29.8% of the time versus OIMS 30.3% (p = 0.87). Median MO and OIMS indemnity payments were similar ($190,591 vs. $233,432; p = 0.20). Correlates of MO claims closing with payment included patient assessment, communication among providers, and safety and security as contributing factors. Thematic analysis identified provider cognitive error, adverse drug events and relational problems as the most common safety incidents. MO malpractice claims have similar outcomes to OIMS. We demonstrate the proof-of-concept of applying a safety incident taxonomy to medical malpractice. Finding ways to reduce patient exposure to provider cognitive errors, adverse drug reactions, and communication breakdowns should be strategic priorities for safer cancer care.

Feasibility of Weekly Electronic Health Record-Embedded Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Starting Oral Cancer-Directed Therapy.

PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of integrating a symptom management platform into the electronic health record (EHR) using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) during oral cancer-directed therapy (OCDT) and explore the impact of prompting oncology nurse navigators (ONNs) to respond to severe symptomatic adverse events (SAEs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults prescribed OCDT at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were consecutively invited to participate. Participants received weekly messages to complete ePROs. The first half enrolled in a passive (P) group where ePROs responses could be viewed anytime, but outreach was not expected. The second half enrolled in an active (A) group where severe SAEs prompted emails to ONNs for outreach within 1 business day. Feasibility was the proportion of participants completing ≥2 ePROs during the first 30 days. Participants were followed for up to 90 days. RESULTS: From June 25, 2019, to August 18, 2021, 100 participants enrolled, and 96 remained enrolled for at least 30 days. Overall, average age was 59 years, 80% female, and 9% used the platform in Spanish. Twenty-two A (45%) and 27 P (57%) participants met the feasibility threshold (P = .26). ePROs returned at 30 days were similar (P = .50): 0 ePROs 17 A, 13 P; 1 ePRO 10 A, 7 P; 2 ePROs 3 A, 5 P; 3 ePROs 1 A, 4 P; 4 ePROs 7 A, 8 P; and 5 ePROs 11 A, 10 P. Documented telephone encounters at 30 days were similar (109 A, 101 P; P = .86). CONCLUSION: EHR-embedded ePROs administered weekly for people on OCDT was feasible, although many went incomplete. ePRO completion was not clearly affected by nursing calls for severe SAEs. Future efforts will investigate improving engagement and addressing symptoms proactively.

Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With New Oral Chemotherapy Prescriptions at an Academic Site and a Community Site.

PURPOSE: Oral chemotherapy challenges providers' abilities to safely monitor patients' symptoms, adherence, and financial toxicity. COVID-19 has increased the urgency of caring for patients remotely. Collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has demonstrated efficacy for patients on intravenous chemotherapy, but limited data support their use in oral chemotherapy. We undertook a pilot project to assess the feasibility of implementing an ePRO system for patients starting oral chemotherapy at our cancer center, which includes both an academic site and a community site. METHODS: Patients initiating oral chemotherapy were asked to participate. A five-question tool was built in REDCap. Concerning responses triggered outreach within one business day. The primary outcome was time to first symptom assessment. For comparison, we used a historical cohort of patients who had been prescribed oral chemotherapies by providers in the same disease groups at the cancer center. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 62 (40%) patients completed ePRO assessments. Fifty historical charts were reviewed. Time to first symptom assessment was 7 days (IQR, 4-14 days) in the historical group compared with 3 days (IQR, 2-4 days) in the ePRO group. Time to clinical action was 14 days (7-35 days) in the historical group compared with 8 days (4-19 days) in the ePRO group. No statistically significant differences were detected in 30-day emergency department visit or hospitalization (12% for both groups) or 90-day emergency department visit or hospitalization rates (historical 28% and ePRO 20%). CONCLUSION: An ePRO tool monitoring patient concerns about adherence, cost, and toxicities for patients with new oral chemotherapy regimens is feasible and improves time to symptom assessment. Further investigation is needed to improve patient engagement with ePROs and evaluate the long-term impacts for patients on oral chemotherapy.