Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

Impact of a Training Program on Oncology Nurses' Confidence in the Provision of Self-Management Support and 5As Behavioral Counseling Skills.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and their families play a central role in the self-management of the medical, emotional, and lifestyle consequences of cancer. Nurses with training in self-management support can enable cancer patients to better manage the effects of cancer and treatment. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial, we developed a training program to build nurses' confidence in the provision of self-management support (SMS). The SMS skills taught were adapted from the Stanford Peer Support training programs and embedded within the 5As (Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, and Arrange) behavioral counseling process. We evaluated the impact of the training program on oncology nurses' and coaches' confidence using a Student's t-test for paired samples in a nonrandomized, one-group pre/postsurvey. RESULTS: Participants were experienced oncology nurses from three participating cancer centers. A two-tailed Student's t-test for paired samples showed a significant improvement in nurses' confidence for the 15 SMS microskills targeted in the training between the pretest and post-test as follows: for Center 1, a mean difference of 0.79 (t = 7.18, p ≤ 0.00001); for Center 2, a mean difference of 0.73 (t = 8.4, p ≤ 0.00001); for Center 3, a mean difference of 1.57 (t = 11.45, p ≤ 0.00001); and for coaches, a mean difference of 0.52 (t = 7.6, p ≤ 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Our training program improved oncology staff nurses' and cancer coaches' confidence in 15 SMS microskills and has potential for SMS training of nurses in routine care.

Improving the quality of self-management support in ambulatory cancer care: a mixed-method study of organisational and clinician readiness, barriers and enablers for tailoring of implementation strategies to multisites.

INTRODUCTION: Improving the quality of self-management support (SMS) for treatment-related toxicities is a priority in cancer care. Successful implementation of SMS programmes depends on tailoring implementation strategies to organisational readiness factors and barriers/enablers, however, a systematic process for this is lacking. In this formative phase of our implementation-effectiveness trial, Self-Management and Activation to Reduce Treatment-Related Toxicities, we evaluated readiness based on constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and developed a process for mapping implementation strategies to local contexts. METHODS: In this convergent mixed-method study, surveys and interviews were used to assess readiness and barriers/enablers for SMS among stakeholders in 3 disease site groups at 3 regional cancer centres (RCCs) in Ontario, Canada. Median survey responses were classified as a barrier, enabler or neutral based on a priori cut-off values. Barriers/enablers at each centre were mapped to CFIR and then inputted into the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Strategy Matching Tool V.1.0 (CFIR-ERIC) to identify centre-specific implementation strategies. Qualitative data were separately analysed and themes mapped to CFIR constructs to provide a deeper understanding of barriers/enablers. RESULTS: SMS in most of the RCCs was not systematically delivered, yet most stakeholders (n=78; respondent rate=50%) valued SMS. For centre 1, 7 barriers/12 enablers were identified, 14 barriers/9 enablers for centre 2 and 11 barriers/5 enablers for centre 3. Of the total 46 strategies identified, 30 (65%) were common across centres as core implementation strategies and 5 tailored implementation recommendations were identified for centres 1 and 3, and 4 for centre 2. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR and CFIR-ERIC were valuable tools for tailoring SMS implementation to readiness and barriers/enablers, whereas NPT helped to clarify the clinical work of implementation. Our approach to tailoring of implementation strategies may have relevance for other studies.