Search

PURPOSE: Drug therapy for cancer is a high-risk, high-volume clinical intervention that requires interprofessional teams. Given the complexity of anticancer drug therapy and safety concerns, an interdisciplinary team developed a novel training program for oncology registered nurses and pharmacists to improve cancer drug safety. METHODS: Participants completed preworkshop learning assessments and received access to web-based modules on six topics: hazardous drug handling, drug extravasation, hypersensitivity reaction management, sepsis recognition, immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities, and oral oncolytic adherence. In a 7-hour workshop, participants applied module content in interactive exercises and high-fidelity simulations. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires assessed changes in knowledge and confidence in each topic. Program satisfaction and changes to clinical practice or policies were assessed 3 months after the workshop. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-two nurses and 82 pharmacists applied to participate, and 103 (35%) and 44 (54%) have participated, respectively. Long-term follow-up data were available on 133 (90%) participants. Change scores in confidence to meet program objectives increased between pre- and postworkshop (range of increase 0.6-0.8, P < .01). Knowledge scores increased significantly between pre- and postworkshop (average improvement of 3.2 points, P < .01). Overall program satisfaction was high (mean 5.0, standard deviation [0.2] on a five-point scale). Seventy-seven (60%) reported that they had made at least one clinical practice or institutional policy change at 3 months. CONCLUSION: An interprofessional education program with online modules, in-person interactive sessions, and simulation activities is a promising strategy to deliver cancer drug safety content to practicing oncology clinicians.

Purpose The 2020 Safe to Touch Consensus Conference on Hazardous Drug Surface Contamination was convened in order to gather subject matter experts in the field of hazardous drug (HD) handling to develop consensus statements regarding surface contamination monitoring for adoption by stakeholders in the drug supply chain, policy, and healthcare arenas. Summary The Safe to Touch conference convened virtually on September 22, 24, and 26, 2020. An expert panel of healthcare providers with experience in HD handling, monitoring, and research; pharmacy and nursing operations; and medication safety led the conference. An experienced audience of approximately 25 reaction panel members provided feedback to the panel via a preconference survey, during the conference, and at a postconference virtual town hall. Additionally, expert speakers presented on a range of issues, including the impact of HD surface contamination on health, current regulations and standards, surface contamination monitoring technologies, and variables impacting surface contamination testing. Conclusion At the end of the conference, the expert panel developed 11 consensus statements and corresponding recommendations that should be widely disseminated in order to educate individuals regarding the impact of HD surface contamination and increase the scope of HD surface contamination monitoring. Institutions involved in the handling of HDs should set short- and long-term goals for implementation of applicable consensus statements.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formed an Infusion Efficiency Workgroup to determine best practices for operating efficient and effective infusion centers. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys that were distributed to NCCN member institutions regarding average patient wait time, chemotherapy premixing practices, infusion chair use, and premedication protocols. To assess chair use, the Workgroup identified and defined five components of chair time. RESULTS: The average patient wait time in infusion centers ranged from 25 to 102 minutes (n = 23; mean, 58 minutes). Five of 26 cancer centers (19%) routinely mix chemotherapy drugs before patient arrival for patients meeting specified criteria. Total planned chair time for subsequent doses of the same drug regimens for the same diseases varied greatly among centers, as follows: Administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide ranged from 85 to 240 minutes (n = 22); of FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplation) ranged from 270 to 420 minutes (n = 22); of rituximab ranged from 120 to 350 minutes (n = 21); of paclitaxel plus carboplatin ranged from 255 to 380 minutes (n = 21); and of zoledronic acid ranged from 30 to 150 minutes (n = 22) for planned total chair time. Cancer centers were found to use different premedication regimens with varying administration routes that ranged in administration times from zero to 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation among cancer centers in regard to planned chair time for the same chemotherapy regimens, providing opportunities for improved efficiency, increased revenue, and more standardization across centers. The NCCN Workgroup demonstrates potential revenue impact and provides recommendations for cancer centers to move toward more efficient and more standard practices.

The coronavirus pandemic has significantly impacted operations at leading cancer centers across the United States. In the midst of the chaos, at least one silver lining has emerged: the development of new, creative strategies for delivering cancer care that are likely to continue post pandemic. The NCCN Best Practices Committee, which is composed of senior physician, nursing, and administrative leaders at NCCN Member Institutions, conducted a webinar series in June 2020 highlighting the most promising and effective strategies to date. Experts from NCCN Member Institutions participated in the series to share their experiences, knowledge, and thoughts about the future of cancer care.

Early warning scoring systems are tools for nurses to help monitor their patients and improve how quickly a patient experiencing a sudden decline receives clinical care. Nurse leaders and frontline staff at a major academic medical center implemented a new early warning system that gives clear guidelines to nurses, nursing assistants, and other clinicians about vital-sign parameters and changes in patients' mental status. .

Purpose To update the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards and to highlight standards for pediatric oncology. Methods The ASCO/ONS Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards were first published in 2009 and updated in 2011 to include inpatient settings. A subsequent 2013 revision expanded the standards to include the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy. A joint ASCO/ONS workshop with stakeholder participation, including that of the Association of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Nurses and American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, was held on May 12, 2015, to review the 2013 standards. An extensive literature search was subsequently conducted, and public comments on the revised draft standards were solicited. Results The updated 2016 standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include pediatric oncology and to introduce new standards: most notably, two-person verification of chemotherapy preparation processes, administration of vinca alkaloids via minibags in facilities in which intrathecal medications are administered, and labeling of medications dispensed from the health care setting to be taken by the patient at home. The standards were reordered and renumbered to align with the sequential processes of chemotherapy prescription, preparation, and administration. Several standards were separated into their respective components for clarity and to facilitate measurement of adherence to a standard. Conclusion As oncology practice has changed, so have chemotherapy administration safety standards. Advances in technology, cancer treatment, and education and training have prompted the need for periodic review and revision of the standards. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/chemo-standards .

e18502Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formed an Infusion Efficiency Workgroup to determine best practices for operating efficient and effective infusion centers. Method...

Objectives To describe the management of fatigue and anemia in patients with cancer. Data sources Published literature and clinical experience. Conclusion Anemia is a common cause of cancer-related fatigue. Epoetin alfa increases hemoglobin, decreases transfusion requirements, and improves energy and quality of life in patients with cancer-related anemia. Nonpharmacologic treatment options include exercise, nutrition optimization, and psychosocial interventions. Effective management of fatigue improves overall cancer treatment, quality of life, and functional status. Implications for nursing practice Fatigue and anemia are commonly undertreated complications of cancer and its treatment. Oncology nurses play a key role in identifying and managing these conditions.

303 Background: This abstract describes the successful implementation of an electronic chemotherapy administration safety checklist and the outcomes that led to further enhancement of safe chemotherapy administration. The purpose of this abstract is to give an overview of the processes in transitioning from a paper checklist to an electronic version. Following the implementation of a paper chemotherapy administration safety checklist in 2002, this cancer center realized a significant reduction in chemotherapy errors reaching patients. The checklist became a model for many practitioners across the U.S. Our implementation of the Sunrise computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system in oncology inpatient units in 10/2009 included support for all of the 2009 ASCO/ONS chemotherapy ordering standards, and featured a two-way interface with the pharmacy system, and an electronic medication administration record. In the 12 months following its deployment, the rate of chemotherapy errors that reached the patient fell from 2.71 per 100 chemotherapy admissions using our paper system to 1.11 per 100 chemotherapy admissions using CPOE. With the advent of electronic documentation it became apparent that the paper checklist was outdated. Methods: An electronic chemotherapy checklist was implemented, replacing a paper version that had been in use for almost a decade. The proper design and implementation of the electronic version were essential to ensure that the safety achieved with the paper checklist was not compromised. After pilot testing, the checklist was implemented. Results: The electronic chemotherapy checklist was accepted by staff and resulted in a decrease in errors reaching the patient. Conclusions: The safe administration of chemotherapy is the number one priority at our cancer center. To our surprise the electronic checklist has been a welcomed addition to our armamentarium against chemotherapy errors. The checklist has enhanced independent safety checks due to required independent sign-on of the electronic system. The checklist also heightened awareness of chemotherapy safety checks, which were unchanged, leading us to believe that the paper version had become somewhat ineffective.