Clinician Ordering and Management Patterns of Urine Toxicology Results at a Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Opioid therapy is a cornerstone for treatment of cancer-related pain, but standardized management practices for patients with cancer and aberrant urine drug test (UDT) results are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence of UDT ordering (both screening and definitive testing) in the oncology setting and to examine clinician management practices for patients with cancer on opioid therapy with aberrant definitive UDT results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with cancer on opioid therapy at an academic cancer center in the United States. Outcomes included UDT ordering patterns and clinician management practices in response to aberrant definitive UDT results. RESULTS: Our study revealed an overall UDT ordering rate of 3.7% among 10,371 patients with cancer on opioid therapy. Among 143 patients for whom definitive UDTs were ordered, oncologists only ordered 14 (9.8%) UDTs, while palliative care ordered the majority (n = 129; 90.2%). Fifty-five (38.5%) patients had aberrant results, and the most common aberrancy was presence of illicit drugs 22 [15.4%]. Clinicians rarely made medication changes (20 [36.4%]) when UDT results were aberrant, and in the setting of possible fentanyl use (n = 8), only 3 (37.5%) patients were started/switched to methadone, and none were started/switched to buprenorphine. CONCLUSION: Overall UDT ordering was infrequent for patients with cancer on opioid therapy, especially by oncologists, and clinicians rarely made prescribing changes when definitive UDT results were aberrant. More definitive guidance related to UDT ordering and opioid management are needed for patients with cancer and aberrant UDT results.

Development of PharmPAL: A Collaborative Practice Pharmacy Clinic in Ambulatory Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Increased access to interprofessional palliative care is needed in ambulatory oncology settings. To achieve this, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute launched a collaborative drug therapy management clinic, PharmPAL, where credentialed advanced practice pharmacists lead independent patient visits. METHODS: As part of a pilot project focused on clinical innovation, we analyzed PharmPAL referrals and pharmacist interventions between July 2020 and June 2021. We extracted referral patterns, patient hospitalizations, and deaths from the electronic medical record. Outpatient palliative care clinicians completed a survey to determine pharmacist needs and overall satisfaction with PharmPAL. RESULTS: From July 2020 to June 2021, PharmPAL constituted 4.7% (299/6305) of all outpatient palliative care encounters. Most palliative care clinicians (86% [6/7]) reported a desire to increase PharmPAL availability. No patient hospitalizations or deaths were attributed to PharmPAL visits. CONCLUSION: PharmPAL increased access to palliative care services. All clinicians reported satisfaction with PharmPAL. We continue to assess the impact PharmPAL has on clinic operations and provider satisfaction.

Development of Entrustable Professional Activities for Specialist Hospice and Palliative Care Pharmacists.

CONTEXT: Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) translate competencies into explicit, practical terms that clearly state the expected roles and responsibilities of clinicians who have achieved proficiency and expertise in a field. EPAs are defined for Hospice and Palliative Medicine physicians but not for other members of Hospice and Palliative Care (HAPC) interprofessional teams, including pharmacists. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop EPAs for HAPC pharmacists. METHODS: An 11-member workgroup of HAPC pharmacists was convened to develop candidate EPAs using nominal group and modified-Delphi methods. Content validity index was used as a measure of consensus, defined a priori at ≥ 60%. Vetting occurred via intra- and interprofessional stakeholder reactor groups and a national survey of HAPC pharmacists. RESULTS: Following an iterative process of workgroup and stakeholder consensus-building, 15 HAPC pharmacist EPAs were developed. Among the workgroup, all 15 EPAs reached ≥ 70% consensus, indicating appropriate internal validity. In a national survey of 185 HAPC pharmacists with a 20% response rate, 13 EPAs were rated by most respondents as "essential" and 2 were rated by most respondents as "important but not essential." Respondents indicated the 15 EPA set represented the core professional activities of HAPC pharmacists well (median rating of 5 on a Likert-like scale, IQR 1). CONCLUSION: Fifteen consensus EPAs describe essential activities of HAPC pharmacists in direct patient care, leadership, education, and scholarship. These EPAs will further guide pharmacist training programs, HAPC services seeking to incorporate a specialized pharmacist on the team, and currently practicing HAPC pharmacists.

Leveraging mobile health technology and research methodology to optimize patient education and self-management support for advanced cancer pain.

PURPOSE: Patient education is critical for management of advanced cancer pain, yet the benefits of psychoeducational interventions have been modest. We used mobile health (mHealth) technology to better meet patients' needs. METHODS: Using the Agile and mHealth Development and Evaluation Frameworks, a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, researchers, patients, and design specialists followed a four-phase iterative process to develop comprehensive, tailored, multimedia cancer pain education for a patient-facing smartphone application. The target population reviewed the content and provided feedback. RESULTS: The resulting application provides comprehensive cancer pain education spanning pharmacologic and behavioral aspects of self-management. Custom graphics, animated videos, quizzes, and audio-recorded relaxations complemented written content. Computable algorithms based upon daily symptom surveys were used to deliver brief, tailored motivational messages that linked to more comprehensive teaching. Patients found the combination of pharmacologic and behavioral support to be engaging and helpful. CONCLUSION: Digital technology can be used to provide cancer pain education that is engaging and tailored to individual needs. A replicable interdisciplinary and patient-centered approach to intervention development was advantageous. mHealth interventions may be a scalable approach to improve cancer pain. Frameworks that merge software and research methodology can be useful in developing interventions.

Rapid Conversion of a Palliative Care Outpatient Clinic to Telehealth.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus pandemic has transformed the practice of medicine, forcing a rapid transition to telehealth. As a specialty, palliative care relies upon expert-level communication and interdisciplinary care. We describe the transition of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute palliative care clinic into a predominantly telemedicine model. RESULTS: We document how we significantly increased goals of care conversations while maintaining patient volume and interdisciplinary care. We present how the components of a palliative visit translate into a virtual model. DISCUSSION: While the transition away from in person visits occurred rapidly, telehealth is likely here to stay. We define the challenges and benefits encountered through increased use of telehealth and identify disparities in healthcare access that will become more pronounced as we move into a communication technology dependent future. We discuss how the pandemic changed the delivery of palliative care in ways that will endure beyond the coronavirus pandemic.

Pearls for opioid use in seriously ill patients.

Opioids are often the foundation of pain management in seriously ill patients. Unfortunately, even experienced providers carry with them information that they consider "fact", when this information is not based on scientific evidence, but on "myth". Several topics were elicited based on common beliefs and misconceptions in clinical practice. These were identified via a survey of pharmacist pain and palliative care providers. Pearls from these topics were chosen that were based on evidence and would have the greatest bearing on clinical practice. The pearls address topics such as not using opioids as first-line analgesics for all types of pain, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, opioid risk management in cancer patients, use of buprenorphine in hospice and palliative care settings and use of naloxone in seriously ill patients. The pearls are supported by clinical evidence extracted from several references. They are intended to make readers give thought to opioid therapy which is strictly evidence-based, and not historical or anecdote-based. Practical recommendations are provided to give readers a starting point to base clinical decisions going forward. Readers may discover that "facts" they once learned about opioid use in seriously ill patients are actually "myths" that are a figment of the past.