Oncologists' responsibility, comfort, and knowledge managing hyperglycemia in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy: a cross sectional study.

PURPOSE: To assess oncologists' responsibility, comfort, and knowledge managing hyperglycemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire collected oncologists' perceptions about professionals responsible for managing hyperglycemia during chemotherapy; comfort (score range 12-120); and knowledge (score range 0-16). Descriptive statistics were calculated including Student t-tests and one-way ANOVA for mean score differences. Multivariable linear regression identified predictors of comfort and knowledge scores. RESULTS: Respondents (N = 229) were 67.7% men, 91.3% White and mean age 52.1 years. Oncologists perceived endocrinologists/diabetologists and primary care physicians as those responsible for managing hyperglycemia during chemotherapy, and most frequently referred to these clinicians. Reasons for referral included lack of time to manage hyperglycemia (62.4%), belief that patients would benefit from referral to an alternative provider clinician (54.1%), and not perceiving hyperglycemia management in their scope of practice (52.4%). The top-3 barriers to patient referral were long wait times for primary care (69.9%) and endocrinology (68.1%) visits, and patient's provider outside of the oncologist's institution (52.8%). The top-3 barriers to treating hyperglycemia were lack of knowledge about when to start insulin, how to adjust insulin, and what insulin type works best. Women (ß = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.16, 3.18) and oncologists in suburban areas (ß = 6.98, 95% CI: 2.53, 11.44) had higher comfort scores than their respective counterparts; oncologists working in practices with > 10 oncologists had lower comfort scores (ß = -2.75, 95% CI: -4.96, -0.53) than those in practices with ≤ 10. No significant predictors were identified for knowledge. CONCLUSION: Oncologists expected endocrinology or primary care clinicians to manage hyperglycemia during chemotherapy, but long wait times were among the top barriers cited when referring patients. New models that provide prompt and coordinated care are needed.

Implementation of an Active-Learning Laboratory on Pharmacogenetics.

Objective. To evaluate students' knowledge, confidence, and skills after implementation of an active-learning laboratory session in clinical pharmacogenetics. Methods. Third-year pharmacy students (n=130) participated in an active-learning laboratory session on pharmacogenetics. In the laboratory activity, students evaluated patients' pharmacogenetic profiles and documented recommendations to providers based on their findings. Students also counseled a simulated patient on the interpretation of their pharmacogenetic profile. Students' knowledge and confidence were assessed before a lecture on clinical pharmacogenetics, after the lecture, and then after the laboratory activity. The assessment included 10 knowledge-based questions and five confidence questions regarding clinical pharmacogenetics. An evaluation of the laboratory activity was completed after the session. Results. On average, students correctly answered 70.3% of the knowledge-based questions before the lecture, 82.8% after the lecture, and 88.7% after the laboratory session. Additionally, students' confidence improved in each of the five areas assessed. Based on evaluations (response rate: 98.5%), students found that the laboratory activity contributed to their professional development, was taught at an appropriate level for their understanding, and was relevant to pharmacy practice. Conclusion. An active-learning laboratory session to teach pharmacy students about clinical pharmacogenetics improved students' knowledge, confidence, and skills.