Medication errors involving oral chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Given the expanding use of oral chemotherapies, the authors set out to examine errors in the prescribing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring of these drugs. METHODS: Reports were collected of oral chemotherapy-associated medication errors from a medical literature and Internet search and review of reports to the Medication Errors Reporting Program and MEDMARX. The authors solicited incident reports from 14 comprehensive cancer centers, and also collected incident reports, pharmacy interventions, and prompted clinician reports from their own center. They classified the type of incident, severity, stage in the medication use process, and type of medication error. They examined the yield of the various reporting methods to identify oral chemotherapy-related medication errors. RESULTS: The authors identified 99 adverse drug events, 322 near misses, and 87 medical errors with low risk of harm. Of the 99 adverse drug events, 20 were serious or life-threatening, 52 were significant, and 25 were minor. The most common medication errors involved wrong dose (38.8%), wrong drug (13.6%), wrong number of days supplied (11.0%), and missed dose (10.0%). The majority of errors resulted in a near miss; however, 39.3% of reports involving the wrong number of days supplied resulted in adverse drug events. Incidents derived from the literature search and hospital incident reporting system included a larger percentage of adverse drug events (73.1% and 58.8%, respectively) compared with other sources. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring oral chemotherapy safety requires improvements in the way these drugs are ordered, dispensed, administered, and monitored.

Prospective identification of risk factors for wound infection after lower extremity oncologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are frequent causes of morbidity and mortality after orthopaedic oncologic procedures. This study was conducted to identify the surgical site infection rate following a lower extremity or pelvic procedure and assess the risk factors for acquiring SSI by direct observation of orthopaedic oncology patients' wounds at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: One hundred ten consecutive patients were prospectively studied. The surveillance of surgical site infections was carried out by a surgeon-trained nurse from the Infectious Disease Service. Nineteen variables were analyzed as risk factors. RESULTS: The overall SSI rate was 13.6% (15 of 110). Excluding those patients with known preoperative infections, the SSI rate was 9.5% (10 of 105). Two statistically significant risk factors for surgical site infection in these patients emerged in the multivariate analysis: blood transfusion (P =.007) and obesity (P =.016). Procedure category was significant in univariate analysis only. Preoperative length of stay, length of procedure, prior adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy or radiotherapy), prior surgery, and use of an implant or allograft were not statistically significant risk factors for wound infection. Antibiotic usage patterns did not influence SSI rate. CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion and obesity should be considered individual risk factors for the development of wound infection in patients having orthopaedic oncologic procedures.

The development of a benchmarking system for a cancer patient population.

Benchmarking, while a useful way to compare outcomes among health care institutions, has been less useful for institutions dealing with specialty patient populations such as cancer, rehabilitation, or psychiatry. Because of regulatory requirements mandating the use of benchmarking for accreditation and performance improvement purposes, a group of comprehensive cancer centers developed a specialized database for benchmarking outcomes for cancer patients. This article describes the development of the database and some of the obstacles encountered by the group. It also outlines solutions to the obstacles. Key words: benchmarking, cancer, quality