Efforts to Improve Naloxone Co-Prescription for Patients With Cancer Pain at Risk of Opioid Overdose.

Importance: Naloxone can be lifesaving in an opioid-related overdose (OD). However, the co-prescription of take-home naloxone (THN) is not widely adopted in routine clinical practice. We implemented a pilot program focused on increasing clinicians' awareness of THN and observed if this impacts THN prescriptions for our patients with cancer pain receiving opioids. Intervention: In January 2020, we initiated an educational program by twice-weekly video presentations and installed pamphlets in all clinic workstations highlighting the risk factors for ODs. We retrospectively reviewed electronic health records (EHR) of randomly selected patient visits, 200 each from eight weeks before intervention (BI) and eight weeks after the intervention (AI). Data on patient characteristics, risk factors for ODs, and THN prescriptions were collected. Results: In all, 380 unique patients were eligible for analysis. The median age was 60, 53% female, and 70% Caucasian. Eighty-two percent (152) BI and 73% (142) AI carried risk factors for ODs (p = 0.13). THN was prescribed to 21% (32/152) BI and 26% (37/142) AI (p = 0.53). Morphine-equivalent daily dose (MEDD) ≥100 mg (30%) and pulmonary disease (25%) were the most prevalent risk factors. The patient's likelihood of receiving a THN prescription increased by 0.9% for every 1-milligram increase in MEDD (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval: 1.006-1.011). Conclusion: The educational intervention did not significantly increase the frequency of THN prescriptions. More direct interventions, including automatic EHR triggers, may need to be tested in future trials.

Rapid Transition to Virtual Care during the COVID-19 Epidemic: Experience of a Supportive Care Clinic at a Tertiary Care Cancer Center.

Background: COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid adoption of telemedicine at our supportive care center (SCC) to ensure continuity of care while maintaining social distancing. Objective: To document the process of transition from in-person to virtual care. Design: The charts of 1744 consecutive patients in our SCC located in the United States were retrospectively reviewed during the four weeks before transition (February 14-March 12), four weeks after transition (March 20-April 16), and transition week (March 13-March 19). Patient demographics, vital aspects of a supportive care visit such as assessments (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-Financial and Spiritual [ESAS-FS], Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener Screen-Adapted to Include Drugs [CAGE-AID], and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale [MDAS]), interdisciplinary team involvement, and visit type were recorded. Results: In total 763 patients were seen before transition, 168 during the transition week, and 813 after transitioning to virtual care. Patient characteristics, ESAS-FS, CAGE-AID, and nurse assessment did not significantly differ among the three groups. The after-transition group had a small reduction in counseling intervention compared with before (20.2% vs. 26.2%; p = 0.0068). MDAS completion was higher after transition (99.6% vs. 98%; p = 0.007). In-person visits decreased from 100% before to 12.7% after transition (p < 0.0001) and virtual visits increased to 49.3% (video) and 38% (telephone). In-person visits decreased to 49% in the week one, 3% in week two, and <2% in week four after transition (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our supportive care team transitioned from in-person care to virtual visits within weeks while maintaining a high patient volume, continuity of care, and adherence to social distancing. Our transition can serve as a model for other centers.