Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

A Phase II, Open-Label Study of an Accelerated Infusion Rate of Daratumumab in Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody initially approved as a single agent for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. The infusion-related reactions (IRRs) commonly seen with intravenous daratumumab have been managed by prolonging the first infusion, temporarily stopping/slowing the rate if reactions occur and using adequate pre- and post-infusion medications. Several retrospective studies have evaluated shorter infusions after ≥ 2 prior doses administered at the standard rates. Although the shorter infusions were well-tolerated, patients in these reports were given heterogeneous daratumumab regimens and had often already received multiple doses at the longer standard rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CMRG-009 is a prospective study designed to demonstrate the safety of accelerated daratumumab infusions commencing with the second dose. After an initial dose on Cycle 1 Day consisting of 8 mg/kg over 4 hours, all subsequent doses were given over 90 minutes. RESULTS: No grade 3 IRRs were observed with the 90-minutes infusions. Both the safety profile and anti-myeloma effects were otherwise similar to those observed with other single agent daratumumab studies using longer infusion times. CONCLUSION: This is the first formal prospective trial using infusion times shorter than the standard schedule directly after an initial 4-hours dose. This rapid infusion protocol has resulted in more efficient resource utilization and has become the standard protocol for the use in all intravenous daratumumab regimens in Canada. This approach has been particularly helpful in shortening chair time during the COVID-19 pandemic and providing a useful alternative in jurisdictions without access to subcutaneous daratumumab.

Implementation and Impact of Choosing Wisely Recommendations in Oncology.

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.