Key Performance Indicators and Metrics for the Implementation of an Oral Chemotherapy Adherence Program.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticancer agents (OAAs) transformed cancer care for patients, extending survival and delaying progression in certain cases. There are multiple pharmacy-driven models to improve patient knowledge and adherence to OAAs. However, a lack of measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) has limited the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of these models. The objective of this study was to identify a set of KPIs, their metrics, and the target values that indicated improved patient care through an OAA adherence program. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify an initial list of defined KPIs, metrics of the KPIs, and targets for success. We assembled an advisory panel of clinicians (n=9), administrators (n=7), and patients (n=2) from across an academic and affiliated community cancer center to gauge agreement on identified KPIs for use within a structured adherence intervention. We used a Qualtrics survey consisting of questions measured using a 5-point Likert scale response that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and a subsequent consensus-building discussion with the advisory panel to identify agreeability with the definitions, metrics, and targets of identified KPIs. RESULTS: Eleven KPIs were identified: (1) time to intended OAA initiation; (2) adherence rate during active treatment; (3) adverse events; (4) medication-related financial toxicity; (5) patient satisfaction; (6) treatment-related emergency department visits; (7) treatment-related hospital admissions; (8) proportion of patients with adherence, toxicity, and financial barriers assessed; (9) proportion of patients referred to social work; (10) time spent by patient in each phase of care as defined by the intervention's standard operating procedure; and (11) revenue generated by billing for service. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 11 KPIs that can be used in evaluating the success of an OAA adherence program. Use of these KPIs will be piloted after formal implementation of the program in both academic and community cancer centers.

Statewide Cancer Drug Repository Reducing Waste in the Setting of Shortage Crisis.

Disparities in cancer treatment, including access to medications, continue to exist. Rising drug prices and cancer drug shortages are 2 causes of inequitable access to treatment. This article introduces pilot outcomes for a solution to improve access to medications while also decreasing medication waste. Cancer drug repositories are an innovative patient-centered model where donations of unused cancer medications from patients are repurposed and provided to patients who are most vulnerable and disproportionately harmed by financial toxicity. This model demonstrates efficiency and sustainability that complements integrated care and provides an approach to increase medication access and decrease medication waste.

Impact of initiating oral anticancer agents for leukemia on adherence to medications for multiple chronic conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Increased use of oral anticancer agents (OAAs) has empowered adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) to manage their therapy, but this shift may complicate medication use, particularly among adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 2013-2018 commercial and Medicare claims data to assess medication use in adults with CML or CLL. To be included, patients must have been at least 18 years old, diagnosed with and had 2+ claims for an OAA indicated for either CML or CLL, continuously enrolled 12 months before and after OAA initiation, and treated for (2+ fills) at least two select chronic conditions. Proportion of days covered (PDC) determined medication adherence and was compared for 12 months before and after OAA initiation by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, McNemar's tests, and difference-in-differences models. RESULTS: Among CLL patients, mean OAA adherence in the first year of therapy was 79.8% (SD: 21.1) and 74.7% (SD: 24.9) for commercial and Medicare patients, respectively; mean adherence for CML patients was 84.5% (SD: 15.8) and 80.1% (SD: 20.1) for commercial and Medicare patients, respectively. Adherence and the proportion adherent (PDC ≥ 80%) to comorbid therapies was generally unchanged following OAA initiation. Consistently unremarkable changes in MCC adherence were observed in 12-month difference-in-differences models, but significant decline was observed in MCC adherence after 6 months of OAA use. CONCLUSIONS: OAA initiation among adults with CML or CLL was not associated with significant, initial changes to adherence to medications for chronic diseases.

Photo elicitation, an approach to better understanding the patient experience with OAAs: pilot study and future implications.

PURPOSE: Oral anti-cancer agents (OAAs) represent a new frontier in cancer treatment, but we do not know how well patients incorporate the strategies that they are taught for managing the side effects of OAAs into their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to understand how OAA side effects influenced patients' lives and what strategies patients used to manage them. METHODS: The study used an interpretive descriptive design utilizing photo elicitation interviews (PEI). Two pharmacists employed at the study ambulatory oncology clinic assisted with recruitment. Participants took photos and subsequent interviews focused on talking to participants about each photo, eliciting participant perspectives describing side effects of OAAs and management strategies. A directed content analysis approach was used to analyze the transcribed interviews. RESULTS: A total of nine participants were included in the study. Three themes and associated sub-themes emerged: making changes to nutritional habits due to OAA side effects (hydration and food), strategies to alleviate OAA side effects (medication and non-medication related), and methods of coping with OAA effects (intra- and interpersonal). Changing nutritional habits was an important strategy to manage OAA side effects. Medication-related strategies to alleviate OAA side effects could be nuanced and, additionally, there was wide variability in coping methods used. CONCLUSION: Patient education on OAAs and side effects is not always tailored to each unique patient and their circumstances. This study uncovered how participants devised their own distinct strategies to prevent or manage OAA side effects in an effort to help improve patients' experiences when taking OAAs.

Oncologists' responsibility, comfort, and knowledge managing hyperglycemia in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy: a cross sectional study.

PURPOSE: To assess oncologists' responsibility, comfort, and knowledge managing hyperglycemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire collected oncologists' perceptions about professionals responsible for managing hyperglycemia during chemotherapy; comfort (score range 12-120); and knowledge (score range 0-16). Descriptive statistics were calculated including Student t-tests and one-way ANOVA for mean score differences. Multivariable linear regression identified predictors of comfort and knowledge scores. RESULTS: Respondents (N = 229) were 67.7% men, 91.3% White and mean age 52.1 years. Oncologists perceived endocrinologists/diabetologists and primary care physicians as those responsible for managing hyperglycemia during chemotherapy, and most frequently referred to these clinicians. Reasons for referral included lack of time to manage hyperglycemia (62.4%), belief that patients would benefit from referral to an alternative provider clinician (54.1%), and not perceiving hyperglycemia management in their scope of practice (52.4%). The top-3 barriers to patient referral were long wait times for primary care (69.9%) and endocrinology (68.1%) visits, and patient's provider outside of the oncologist's institution (52.8%). The top-3 barriers to treating hyperglycemia were lack of knowledge about when to start insulin, how to adjust insulin, and what insulin type works best. Women (ß = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.16, 3.18) and oncologists in suburban areas (ß = 6.98, 95% CI: 2.53, 11.44) had higher comfort scores than their respective counterparts; oncologists working in practices with > 10 oncologists had lower comfort scores (ß = -2.75, 95% CI: -4.96, -0.53) than those in practices with ≤ 10. No significant predictors were identified for knowledge. CONCLUSION: Oncologists expected endocrinology or primary care clinicians to manage hyperglycemia during chemotherapy, but long wait times were among the top barriers cited when referring patients. New models that provide prompt and coordinated care are needed.

Barriers and facilitators associated with implementing interventions to support oral anticancer agent adherence in academic and community cancer center settings.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study is to determine barriers and facilitators to the implementation of medication adherence interventions to support cancer patients taking novel, targeted oral anticancer agents (OAAs). METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews using a semi-structured guide from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used purposive sampling to identify clinicians (physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, nurses) and administrators (leadership from medicine, pharmacy, and nursing) who delivered care and/or oversee care delivery for patients with chronic leukemia prescribed an OAA. RESULTS: A total of 19 individuals participated in an interview (12 clinicians and 7 administrators), with 10 primarily employed by an academic cancer center; 5 employed by the community cancer center; and 4 employed by the integrated health-system specialty pharmacy. Barriers identified included low awareness of adherence interventions, difficulty in adherence measurement, complexity of designing and implementing a structured adherence intervention, and competing priorities. Facilitators identified included support of hospital administrators, value for pharmacists, and willingness to embrace change. Participants also made recommendations moving forward including standardizing workflow, designating champions, iterating implementation strategies, and improving communication between clinicians and with patients. CONCLUSION: Individual and system level factors were identified as determinants of implementation effectiveness of medication adherence interventions. A multidisciplinary advisory panel will be assembled to design comprehensive and actionable strategies to refine and implement a structured intervention to improve medication adherence in cancer patients.

Video reflexive ethnography as an intervention to improve oral anti-cancer agent patient education: A pilot study.

Objective: Oral anticancer agents (OAAs) are associated with side effects that interfere with medication adherence, despite patient education regarding side effect management. Video reflexive ethnography (VRE) captures care processes on video that allow participants to learn from videos. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the usefulness and impact of VRE on improving OAA education. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in a pharmacist-managed OAA clinic: two pharmacists and four patients participated. We filmed each pharmacist providing education to two patients. We conducted patient interviews and one reflexivity session with both pharmacists to learn participants' perspectives. We used thematic content analysis to analyze data. Results: Two themes emerged: what patients liked/helped, and things that were unclear. Patients liked instructions on temperature taking, directions to safely handle and store OAAs. Unclear areas included knowing the timing of the worst side effects.During the reflexivity session, pharmacists found patients' comments useful to improve their practice. Conclusion: VRE was acceptable to pharmacists and patients. Pharmacists recognized VRE as a helpful technique to improve patient education on OAAs. Innovation: The use of video enables participants to scrutinize and reshape their practices, making VRE a powerful innovation and adjunct to quality improvement initiatives.

Feasibility of a comprehensive medication review to improve medication use for patients with cancer and comorbid conditions.

PURPOSE: A focus on oral medications for patients receiving care from both oncologists and primary care providers elicits an opportunity for improvement in patient outcomes. The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the feasibility and appropriateness of a comprehensive medication review (CMR) by a primary care pharmacist in a population of patients with cancer and chronic conditions. METHODS: Adult patients who received both cancer and primary care at Michigan Medicine, received active systemic cancer treatment, and had a comorbid condition of diabetes, hypertension, chronic heart failure, depression, and/or anxiety were eligible to receive a CMR by the primary care clinical pharmacist. Data collected included number eligible for the CMR (feasibility), patient demographics, medication-related problems (MRPs) and medication interventions (appropriate), number of patients requiring follow-up with the clinical pharmacist or physician, and pre/post-intervention changes in A1c and BP, as applicable. RESULTS: Of the 96 patients that met inclusion criteria, 55 patients (57%) received a CMR. Pharmacists provided 66 instances of patient education and identified 22 medication-related problems (MRPs) in 15 (27%) of patients. After CMRs were completed, 22 patients (40%) were referred to primary care pharmacists or physician providers for ongoing care. CONCLUSION: A CMR was feasible and appropriate for patients with chronic conditions receiving treatment for cancer.

Implementation of a model integrating primary and oncology pharmacists' care for patients taking oral anticancer agents (OAA).

Improvements in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and multiple myeloma (MM) treatment options have increased the 5-year survival rates for patients with these hematologic malignancies. In addition to cancer management, these patients may need help to manage multiple chronic conditions (MCC). The overall objective of this study is to examine the impact and implementation of a model that coordinates care between oncology and primary care pharmacists for people taking an oral anti-cancer agent (OAAs) and medications for comorbid chronic conditions. This is a multi-center, prospective, single-arm pilot study that will recruit up to 40 patients from Michigan Medicine and Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). Eligible participants will be 18 years of age or older, prescribed an OAA, have a diagnosis of either CML, CLL or MM, and be diagnosed with and taking medication for at least two specified chronic conditions. The Pharmacists Coordinated Care Oncology Model (PCOM) is a two-month intervention that builds upon current pharmacist clinical responsibilities. Generally, participants will complete a patient-reported outcome measure at 2 and 6 weeks post-OAA initiation that is sent to their oncology pharmacist, and they will also receive a comprehensive medication review at week 4 from a primary care pharmacist for their chronic medications. The pharmacists will communicate about the results via electronic medical record (EMR) and intervene if necessary. The primary endpoints are (1) dose-adjusted OAA proportion of days covered (PDC), and (2) PDC for chronic condition medications. PDCs will be determined via prescription records. The association of OAA and chronic medication PDCs will be quantified via correlation and chi-squared tests. The association between symptom experience and OAA adherence will be examined via correlation analyses. For implementation, characteristics of patient participants, feasibility, acceptability, adoption, fidelity, and trialability will be described. Data will be collected via EMR and pharmacist and patient interviews. Median/IQR for acceptability, adoption and fidelity will be reported, and patient interviews will be analyzed using a grounded theory approach and pharmacist interviews will be analyzed using thematic analyses.

ONS Guidelines™ to Support Patient Adherence to Oral Anticancer Medications.

PURPOSE: This evidence-based guideline intends to support patients, clinicians, and others regarding interventions and processes to support patient adherence to oral anticancer medications (OAMs). METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: A panel of healthcare professionals and patient representatives developed a clinical practice guideline to support patients taking OAMs. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology and criteria for trustworthy guidelines were followed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A quantitative or narrative synthesis of the evidence was completed. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. FINDINGS: The panel agreed on recommendations and suggested an adherence risk assessment, education addressing adherence, ongoing assessment, proactive follow-up, coaching, and motivational interviewing in addition to usual care. The panel suggested the implementation of a structured OAM program. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: As cancer treatment shifts from clinic to home settings, interventions and programs to support patients on OAMs are needed.

Medication Adherence Among Adults With Comorbid Chronic Conditions Initiating Oral Anticancer Agent Therapy for Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Increased use of oral anticancer agents (OAAs) has empowered adults with multiple myeloma (MM) to manage their oncolytic therapy, but such a shift may result in issues with medication use, particularly among patients being concurrently treated for pre-existing, multiple chronic conditions. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 2013-2018 commercial and Medicare claims data to assess medication use in adults with MM. To be included, adults (18 years and older) must have been diagnosed with and had 2+ claims for an OAA, had continuous enrollment for 12 months before and after OAA initiation, and have been previously diagnosed with and had prescription fills for 2+ select chronic conditions. The proportion of days covered metric assessed medication adherence and was compared for 12 months before and after the OAA initiation by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, McNemar's tests, and difference-in-differences models. RESULTS: The mean OAA adherence in the first year of therapy was 58.3% (standard deviation: 24.5) and 65.1% (standard deviation: 27.01) for commercial and Medicare patients, respectively. Adherence and the proportion adherent (proportion of days covered ≥ 80%) to comorbid therapies generally declined in the first year after OAA initiation. Changes in medication use were particularly noticeable among those on antihypertensive therapy: adjusted analyses uncovered a 2.5% (Medicare) and 5.2% (commercial) difference in adherence to these medications between those initially adherent and nonadherent to OAA therapy (both P < .05). CONCLUSION: Initiating OAA therapy in adults with MM may complicate an already complex treatment regimen, resulting in poor overall medication adherence in patients with multiple comorbid conditions.

Clinician Report of Oral Oncolytic Symptoms and Adherence Obtained via a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM).

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for symptom monitoring during cancer therapy have been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes. These findings have primarily been shown for patients receiving intravenous chemotherapy. In addition, there is known discordance between physician reporting of symptoms and patient self-report. This initiative sought to describe patient-reported symptom burden and medication adherence and to indicate the degree of PROM results being discussed with the provider as indicated by documentation in the medical record for patients taking oral oncolytic therapy. METHODS: The Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) PROM, which included symptom ratings, medication adherence, and patient confidence in self-management, was completed during outpatient visits and compared with corresponding data documented in the electronic medical record (EMR). RESULTS: There were 82 completed PROMs. Approximately half included at least one symptom rated as severe (46%). Sixty-five percent of reported severe symptoms were documented in the EMR. Patient-reported moderate-to-severe pain was most likely to be documented in the EMR (100%), whereas patient-reported moderate-to-severe depression and anxiety were least likely to be documented (21%). Of the total symptoms documented, grading of symptom severity matched that of the patients' own report for 11% of severe symptoms. Adherence to oral oncolytics was excellent for 63% of patients, and patient adherence was documented in 7% of provider notes. CONCLUSION: Patients frequently reported moderate-to-severe symptoms, and approximately 40% of patients reported nonadherence. Clinician report (documented in the EMR) of the patient symptom burden, symptom severity, and adherence to oral oncolytic therapy was not consistent with the patients' self-report. Use of a PROM for patients taking oral oncolytics has the opportunity to improve symptom management and medication adherence.

2018 Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association Best Practices for the Management of Oral Oncolytic Therapy: Pharmacy Practice Standard.

PURPOSE: The aim of the current work was to present a pharmacy practice standard from the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) on the management of oral oncolytic therapy. METHODS: The HOPA Standards Committee organized a work group of oncology pharmacist specialists to create a pharmacy practice standard for the management of oral oncolytic therapy that describes the pharmacist's role on the cancer care team, provides examples of practice tools and resources, summarizes current data related to outcomes, and discusses opportunities to enhance the care of patients with cancer who receive oral oncolytic therapy. We reviewed primary literature, including currently published oral oncolytic guidelines and HOPA's Scope of Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Practice. RESULTS: Management of oral oncolytic therapy was divided into the following primary areas: prescribing, education, dispensing and distribution, and monitoring and follow-up. Pharmacists' roles were summarized in each area with a focus on interprofessional collaboration, communication, patient safety, and quality of patient care. Standards describe the best practices in each area ( Table 1 ). CONCLUSION: Multiple opportunities exist for pharmacists to enhance the care of patients with cancer who receive oral oncolytics through collaboration with oncology care team members. The role of the oncology pharmacist in the care of this patient population is critical given the complexities related to cost, tolerability, and safety of oral oncolytic medications; issues of access; and the monitoring and follow-up of patients receiving this therapy.

Impact of a Statewide Oral Oncolytic Initiative on Five Participating Practices.

PURPOSE: The shift from infusion to oral oncolytic therapy presents challenges to oncology practitioners. The purpose of this study was to describe how a statewide quality-improvement collaborative can enhance quality of care for patients receiving oral oncolytic therapy. METHODS: The Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium hosted a series of learning sessions focused on oral oncolytic quality improvement, providing multiple resources to oncology community practices. The first five participating practices reported which of the evidence-based Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium resources provided were implemented at their site. They also performed prepost self-assessments in October 2013 and April 2015 and another in December 2017 to assess sustainability. Concordance with the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative oral chemotherapy standards, including documentation (five measures), patient education (seven measures), and follow-up/monitoring (four measures), was compared. RESULTS: All practices showed improvement between 2013 and 2015 in documentation (32% to 88%; P = .03), patient education (37% to 100%; P could not be calculated), and monitoring (40% to 80%; P > .2). Overall, a significant improvement in concordance was observed (36% to 91%; P = .03). Use of resources from each practice varied, and practices that used more resources showed greater improvements. There was a slight decrease in overall concordance between 2015 and 2017, which was not found to be significant (91% to 84%; P = .53). CONCLUSION: Use of tools from a quality-improvement collaborative improved concordance with national standards of care. Large-scale deployment of this model program may provide a clinically efficient and effective mechanism to enhance widespread change.

Oncology Pharmacist Opportunities: Closing the Gap in Quality Care.

PURPOSE: ASCO has worked to facilitate the improvement in quality oncology care via the development of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI). The extent to which the ASCO QOPI identifies areas in which pharmacists may enhance care is not known. These findings are important, as pharmacists are an integral part of the care team, providing direct clinical care in addition to medication use guidelines and practice-based policies. In addition, high-performing practices may receive reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. METHODS: Three pharmacists reviewed 200 QOPI measures for potential pharmacist involvement. We used the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association Scope of Practice document and a validated summary of services provided by board-certified oncology pharmacists to identify which practice domains and pharmacy services would best fit the care provided by the selected QOPI measures. RESULTS: A total of 177 QOPI measures were analyzed. Potential areas of pharmacist impact were identified in 67 (38%) of the included metrics. Measures largely related to optimizing drug therapy through the development and implementation of pharmacy guidelines. Patient counseling and symptom management are services that best described the majority of QOPI measures deemed actionable by a pharmacist. We also found that several QOPI measures pharmacists can intervene upon overlap with metrics currently assessed for reimbursement via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Merit-Based Incentive Payment System. CONCLUSION: Oncology pharmacists are uniquely positioned to improve the quality of care provided to patients with cancer within the team-based setting.

Implementing a Method for Evaluating Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated With Oral Oncolytic Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The paradigm shift in health care toward value-based reimbursement has brought emphasis to providing better quality of care to patients with chronic diseases, including patients with cancer. In accordance with providing better quality of care to patients, there has been a growing interest in evaluating quality of life through patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-r) is a tool that can be used to assess PROs and has been validated for use in patients with cancer. This initiative sought to use this standard assessment tool to acquire PROs concerning symptom burden from patients prescribed oral oncolytics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight oncology practices in the state of Michigan used a modified ESAS-r to evaluate symptom burden of patients prescribed oral oncolytics before each outpatient visit. Thirteen symptoms were categorized as mild (0 to 3), moderate (4 to 6), or severe (7 to 10). RESULTS: A total of 1,235 modified ESAS-r surveys were collected and analyzed; 82.5% of symptoms were categorized as mild, 11.9% of symptoms were categorized as moderate, and 5.6% of symptoms were categorized as severe. CONCLUSION: PROs can be evaluated through the use of a standardized tool, such as the ESAS-r, in oncology patients receiving oral oncolytic therapy. Implementing such a tool in both community and academic practices is feasible and may facilitate improvements in the quality of care.

The relationship between patient activation, confidence to self-manage side effects, and adherence to oral oncolytics: a pilot study with Michigan oncology practices.

PURPOSE: The Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) is a continuous quality improvement collaborative seeking to improve oncology care in Michigan, including for patients taking oral chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between patient activation, confidence to self-manage side effects, and adherence to oral oncolytics to inform future oncology care. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional observational study was conducted using an online survey to examine patient activation (patient activation measure, PAM), health literacy, symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, ESAS), confidence to self-manage side effects (fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea), and adherence to oral oncolytics. Inclusion criteria were patients taking an oral oncolytic for at least 1 month. Bivariate analyses and logistic regression were performed to evaluate relationships between the variables. RESULTS: A total of 125 respondents, mean (SD) age 66.2 (13.6), 57.7% female, and 95.1% Caucasian completed the survey. The mean (SD) PAM score was 65.0 (18.0). Confidence to manage fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea was associated with higher activation, and confidence to self-manage fatigue and diarrhea were associated with higher health literacy. About 30% of participants reported some level of non-adherence to oral oncolytics, and those who experienced side effects (Fisher's exact test p = 0.033) and with shorter length of therapy (t test p = 0.027) were significantly more likely to be non-adherent. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that there is room for improvement across practices involved with MOQC with regard to supporting patients taking oral oncolytics. Patients will need to improve their activation levels, and oncology clinics will need to create new workflows in order to enhance self-care management ability for patients taking oral oncolytics.

Improving Oral Oncolytic Patient Self-Management.

PURPOSE: Managing patients who are taking oral oncolytics is challenging because of the changing paradigm from frequent supervision during intravenous therapy to periodic observation with oral administration of drugs. We joined the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) Oral Oncolytics Collaborative in 2013 to identify opportunities for improvement in this area. METHODS: We completed MOQC's baseline self-assessment and performed an audit of medical records for 25 patients prescribed an oral oncolytic from May 2011 to July 2013. We implemented the following MOQC resources: a tracking system for patients taking oral oncolytics, patient education with drug-specific self-care guidelines, use of a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and a medication adherence questionnaire to be used on scheduled follow-up calls and return visits. We modified our workflow to include a standard teaching session and consistent follow-up phone calls. We conducted a retrospective postimplementation medical records audit from August 2013 to September 2014. RESULTS: Baseline self-assessment revealed lack of start date documentation and lack of consistent follow-up. A baseline medical records audit showed that 48% of patients discontinued their medication without consulting their physician, and start date documentation was available for only 52% of patients. After participating in the quality initiative, 100% of patients sampled had a documented start date, and no patients discontinued their drug on their own. Seventeen percent had a dose reduction as a result of toxicity, as directed by the physician. CONCLUSION: The introduction of new office procedures to easily identify all patients receiving oral therapy and improvement in patients' ability to manage symptoms at home with the use of self-care guidelines contributed to an improvement in managing patients who are taking oral oncolytics.

Evaluation of outpatient medication reconciliation involving student pharmacists at a comprehensive cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of discrepancies and medication-related problems found as a result of pharmacy-led medication reconciliation involving introductory pharmacy practice experience (IPPE) students at a comprehensive cancer center. SETTING: Outpatient infusion center of a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer center. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION AND INNOVATION: Third-year IPPE students contacted and completed medication reconciliation for 510 hematology/oncology patients scheduled for infusion center appointments without a coupled provider visit. IPPE students discussed the findings of the medication reconciliations with their pharmacist preceptors, who updated the medication histories in the electronic medical record (EMR) and communicated with prescribers directly about identified medication-related problems. All medication reconciliation was documented using a standardized note template in the EMR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of medication discrepancies found, including medication additions, medication deletions, dose changes, and herbal product additions; medication-related problems-including drug-drug interactions, untreated indications (e.g., nausea, vomiting, pain, need for prophylactic medications), failure of patients to receive prescribed medications, and adverse drug reactions-were also documented. RESULTS: Medication reconciliation was completed for 510 patients through the student pharmacist/pharmacist preceptor-led intervention during a 1-year period between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013. A total of 88% of patients had at least one discrepancy identified in their medication history and corrected in the EMR. In addition, 11.4% of patients had a medication-related problem identified. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation identified a large number of discrepancies among our hematology/oncology patients. This intervention allowed for correction of discrepancies in the EMR leading to improved accuracy of patient medication lists. In addition, it provided a valuable learning experience for student pharmacists.

Administration of oral chemotherapy: results from three rounds of the quality oncology practice initiative.

PURPOSE: Although use of oral chemotherapy is becoming more prevalent, little is known about the quality of care that patients receive when these agents are prescribed. Moreover, few practice-level systems are in place to ensure safe management of oral chemotherapy in the vulnerable population of patients with cancer. METHODS: We analyzed results from 155 practices that were voluntarily participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) program on 17 test measures of oral chemotherapy administration and management in at least one of three collection periods: spring or fall of 2012, or spring of 2013. The 17 test measures cover three domains: treatment plan documentation, patient education, and adherence/toxicity monitoring. We defined composite scores for each of the three domains. We analyzed the composite scores by secular trend and tested the difference in composite scores for the three domains. Additionally, we tested change in scores over time among practices that participated at least twice. RESULTS: The majority of data was provided by QOPI-certified practices. Overall, mean practice composite scores ranged from 66% to 68% for treatment plan documentation, 51% to 57% for patient education, and 75% to 81% for adherence/toxicity monitoring. Composite scores for practices that participated more than once did not improve significantly. CONCLUSION: The collection of oral chemotherapy test measure data is feasible. Composite scores for treatment plan documentation and patient education were not only lower, but had greater variability compared with adherence/toxicity monitoring. Improvement opportunities exist for patients who are prescribed oral chemotherapy.