Evaluation and implementation of chemotherapy regimen validation in an electronic health record.

INTRODUCTION: Computerized provider order entry of chemotherapy regimens is quickly becoming the standard for prescribing chemotherapy in both inpatient and ambulatory settings. One of the difficulties with implementation of chemotherapy regimen computerized provider order entry lies in verifying the accuracy and completeness of all regimens built in the system library. Our goal was to develop, implement, and evaluate a process for validating chemotherapy regimens in an electronic health record. METHODS: We describe our experience developing and implementing a process for validating chemotherapy regimens in the setting of a standard, commercially available computerized provider order entry system. The pilot project focused on validating chemotherapy regimens in the adult inpatient oncology setting and adult ambulatory hematologic malignancy setting. RESULTS: A chemotherapy regimen validation process was defined as a result of the pilot project. Over a 27-week pilot period, 32 chemotherapy regimens were validated using the process we developed. Results of the study suggest that by validating chemotherapy regimens, the amount of time spent by pharmacists in daily chemotherapy review was decreased. In addition, the number of pharmacist modifications required to make regimens complete and accurate were decreased. Both physician and pharmacy disciplines showed improved satisfaction and confidence levels with chemotherapy regimens after implementation of the validation system. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy regimen validation required a considerable amount of planning and time but resulted in increased pharmacist efficiency and improved provider confidence and satisfaction.

Enoxaparin once daily vs. twice daily dosing for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a literature summary.

Current anticoagulation guidelines for cancer patients are largely based upon studies done in the general population. Anticoagulation studies in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) have compared varying doses of different low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) to warfarin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) regimens, and most guidelines recommend LMWH as the preferred agent over vitamin K antagonists. However, very few studies compare different dosing regimens of the LMWH itself. As a result, practitioners attempt to extrapolate results from studies done in the general medicine population and apply them to cancer patients with VTE. Considering the differences in risk factors and hypercoagulability between these populations, such generalizations may compromise outcomes or safety for cancer patients. Currently, no study to date has compared the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) once daily vs. 1 mg/kg SC twice daily in a prospective, randomized fashion, for the longterm treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. The purpose of this article is to review currently available literature utilizing these dosing schemes in order to risk-stratify cancer patients who may better qualify for one dosing regimen as compared to the other. Our analysis suggests that enoxaparin dosed at 1.5 mg/kg SC once daily may be a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients with both a low risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding. In the absence of additional studies, the dosing of enoxaparin for cancer patients should be based on patient-specific risk factors.