Impact of Peripheral Nerve Block Technique on Incidence of Phrenic Nerve Palsy in Shoulder Surgery.

Peripheral nerve blocks are an increasingly common method of providing postoperative analgesia for shoulder surgeries. However, the standard technique, the interscalene block (ISB), inevitably causes hemidiaphragmatic paresis (HDP), secondary to phrenic nerve palsy. This can cause morbidity in patients with preexisting respiratory compromise, prompting investigation into alternative "phrenic-sparing" nerve blocks. The aim of this review was to give an overview of these blocks and critically evaluate the current literature to determine if any are suitable replacements for ISB. The incidence of HDP and analgesic efficacy were considered. We queried four electronic databases and one register. Twenty-eight original articles were selected for review. The use of ultrasound guidance, lower volumes of local anaesthetic (LA), and injection 4 mm outside the brachial plexus fascia reduced HDP incidence for the ISB; however, no single modification did so sufficiently. While the anterior suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) showed comparable analgesic effects to the ISB, HDP prevalence was also high. The posterior SSNB produced consistently low HDP incidences but also inferior analgesia to ISB, except when combined with an infraclavicular brachial plexus block. The superior trunk block (STB) provided equivalent analgesia to the ISB while reducing HDP incidence, but not significantly. Lower LA volumes consistently led to lower HDP incidence across all blocks, likely due to a reduced ability to spread to the phrenic nerve. Further investigation into the minimum effective volumes of the extrafascial ISB, anterior SSNB, STB, and combined posterior SSNB with infraclavicular block is warranted to determine if any of these blocks can successfully balance HDP prevention with analgesic efficacy.

VicTAG chemotherapy audit toolkit: Improving chemotherapy quality and safety.

OBJECTIVE: Off-protocol prescribing of systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) can lead to concerns about effectiveness of patient care. To identify variations in practice, a toolkit was developed for health services to address patient safety and the risk of sub-optimal outcomes for patients. DATA SOURCES: Following significant incidents with SACT in South Australia and New South Wales, the Department of Health and Human Services, Victoria (the department) conducted an assessment of Victorian public health services to understand current practice regarding SACT protocol governance. A literature review examining SACT auditing was also undertaken to guide improvements. A department supported Chemotherapy Audit Toolkit (CAT) was created for implementation at public hospitals in Victoria. A post-implementation survey was done on uptake and issue identification. DATA SUMMARY: An initial assessment showed that 27% of Victorian public health services were undertaking retrospective review of SACT dosing, which was targeted for improvement. The literature review identified little guidance, however an audit of current sector practices found several audit methodologies. A process that involved audits by health services assessing their own practice was adopted. The toolkit was developed and piloted with health services. A post-implementation survey showed that 20% of services were using the toolkit, 35% were implementing the toolkit and 45% did not use the toolkit. CONCLUSIONS: The VicTAG CAT has been adopted by more than half of Victorian public health services and is being used to influence prescribing. Implementation of the toolkit has been affected by resource reallocation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CAT is available online.

Impact of coronavirus of 2019 on the delivery of pharmacy services to patients with cancer: An international survey of oncology pharmacy practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus of 2019 pandemic has necessitated vast and rapid changes in the way oncology pharmacy services are delivered around the world. METHODS/AIMS: An international survey of oncology pharmacists and technicians was conducted via the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and collaborating global pharmacy organisations to determine the impact that the coronavirus of 2019 has had on pharmacy service delivery, pharmacy practitioners and oncology practice. RESULTS: The survey received 862 responses from 40 different countries from September to October 2020. The majority of respondents were pharmacists (n = 841, 97.6%), with 24% involved in the direct care of patients with the coronavirus of 2019. Of the survey participants, 55% increased their time working remotely, with remote activities including dispensing, patient assessment/follow-up and attending multi-disciplinary rounds. Respondents reported a 72% increase in the use of technology to perform remote patient interaction activities and that participation in educational meetings and quality improvement projects was reduced by 68% and 44%, respectively. Workforce impacts included altered working hours (50%), cancelled leave (48%) and forced leave/furloughing (30%). During the pandemic, respondents reported reduced access to intensive care (19%) and anti-cancer (15%) medications. In addition, 39% of respondents reported reduced access to personal protective equipment, including N95 masks for chemotherapy compounding. Almost half of respondents (49%) reported that cancer treatments were delayed or intervals were altered for patients being treated with curative intent. A third of practitioners (30%) believed that patient outcomes would be adversely impacted by changes to pharmacy services. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported impacts on their mental health, with 12% utilising support services. CONCLUSION: The coronavirus of 2019 pandemic has altered the way oncology pharmacy services are delivered. These results demonstrate the adaptability of the oncology pharmacy profession and highlight the importance of formal evaluation of the varied practice models to determine the evidence-based practices that enhance pharmacy services and, thus, should be reinstated as soon as practical and reasonable.

Global oncology pharmacy response to COVID-19 pandemic: Medication access and safety.

Response, action, and adaptation of the way health services are delivered will impact our ability to provide optimized and continuity of care while acting within resource constraints imposed by COVID-19. Care for patients with cancer is particularly important given increased infection rates and worse outcomes from COVID-19 in this patient population, as well as potential adverse outcomes if treatment pathways need to be compromised. In this commentary, we provide a global oncology pharmacy perspective (including both developed and developing nations) on how COVID-19 has impacted access to and delivery of cancer therapies. This perspective was prepared by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, with input from national and regional oncology pharmacy practice groups (42 practice leaders from 28 countries and regions) who contributed to a snapshot survey between 10 and 22 April 2020. Specifically, we highlight challenges related to safe handling of hazardous drugs and maintaining high-quality medication safety standards that have impacted various stakeholders.

International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners global position on the use of biosimilars in cancer treatment and supportive care.

With the development of innovative cancer treatments over recent decades, the cost of cancer care has risen exponentially, limiting patient access to patented originator biotherapeutics in many countries. The introduction of biosimilars to the market has created new opportunities as well the need for changes in practice within healthcare institutions. A 'biosimilar' is a biotherapeutic product which is highly similar in terms of quality, safety and efficacy to an already licensed originator product. Although biosimilars lack clinically meaningful differences in therapeutic activity as compared to the originator product, these complex biological molecules are not considered identical chemical copies, unlike generics, and minor differences in molecular structure and inactive compounds may exist. A thorough understanding of these differences and their clinical implications is necessary for optimising medicines-use practices involving biosimilars. This position statement, developed by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners Biosimilars Taskforce, aims to provide the global oncology pharmacy community with guidance to support decisions around biosimilar use. The 11 statements cover the regulation and evaluation of biosimilars, practical issues around local implementation, the education of healthcare staff and patients, and the requirement for ongoing pharmacovigilance and outcome monitoring.

Effect of risk aversion on prioritizing conservation projects.

Conservation outcomes are uncertain. Agencies making decisions about what threat mitigation actions to take to save which species frequently face the dilemma of whether to invest in actions with high probability of success and guaranteed benefits or to choose projects with a greater risk of failure that might provide higher benefits if they succeed. The answer to this dilemma lies in the decision maker's aversion to risk--their unwillingness to accept uncertain outcomes. Little guidance exists on how risk preferences affect conservation investment priorities. Using a prioritization approach based on cost effectiveness, we compared 2 approaches: a conservative probability threshold approach that excludes investment in projects with a risk of management failure greater than a fixed level, and a variance-discounting heuristic used in economics that explicitly accounts for risk tolerance and the probabilities of management success and failure. We applied both approaches to prioritizing projects for 700 of New Zealand's threatened species across 8303 management actions. Both decision makers' risk tolerance and our choice of approach to dealing with risk preferences drove the prioritization solution (i.e., the species selected for management). Use of a probability threshold minimized uncertainty, but more expensive projects were selected than with variance discounting, which maximized expected benefits by selecting the management of species with higher extinction risk and higher conservation value. Explicitly incorporating risk preferences within the decision making process reduced the number of species expected to be safe from extinction because lower risk tolerance resulted in more species being excluded from management, but the approach allowed decision makers to choose a level of acceptable risk that fit with their ability to accommodate failure. We argue for transparency in risk tolerance and recommend that decision makers accept risk in an adaptive management framework to maximize benefits and avoid potential extinctions due to inefficient allocation of limited resources.

High incidence of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in patients receiving biweekly rituximab and cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone.

The risk of infection with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) in patients undergoing chemotherapy is closely related to the intensity of corticosteroid exposure. PCP is uncommon with classical (3-weekly) R-CHOP, but the risk may be higher with biweekly R-CHOP (R-CHOP-14) due to the increased frequency of prednisolone pulses. Among 47 consecutive patients treated with R-CHOP-14 at our institution, five (11%) developed microbiologically proven PCP, with a further two (4%) having classical clinical and radiological features of PCP, but without microbiological confirmation. None of these patients were HIV-positive or had additional risk factors for PCP. Our experience suggests that PCP prophylaxis should be considered in institutions using R-CHOP-14 for the treatment of patients with aggressive lymphomas.