A systematic review of synchronous telepharmacy service models for adult outpatients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Telephone and videoconsults are known synchronous telepharmacy modalities being used to respond to the demand for outpatient pharmacy services. However, little is known about the evidence for cancer telepharmacy service models. OBJECTIVES: To review existing evidence regarding synchronous telepharmacy service models for adult outpatients with cancer, with a secondary focus on outcomes, enablers, and barriers. METHODS: A PROSPERO registered systematic review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE in March 2023. Key search terms included pharmacy, telepharmacy, and outpatient. During article selection in Covidence, an extra inclusion criterion of synchronous cancer-focused services was applied; data extraction and narrative analysis were then performed. RESULTS: From 2129 non-duplicate articles, 8 were eligible for inclusion, describing 7 unique patient populations. The service models included pre-treatment medication history taking, adherence monitoring, toxicity assessment, and discharge follow-up. Studies found synchronous telepharmacy services can improve timeliness of care, optimise workload management, and provide individualised and convenient efficacy monitoring and counselling. One study of 177 patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors found 38% of the 726 telephone consults involved at least one intervention. When videoconsults were compared directly with telephone consults for pre-treatment medication history, it was found scheduled videoconsults had a significantly higher success rate than unscheduled telephone consults, and that videoconsults also represented increased funding and equivalent time efficiency. When telephone follow-up was compared to no follow-up, improved treatment adherence was seen, and progression-free survival was significantly higher for the telephone group (6.1 months vs 3.7 months, p = 0.001). Reported enablers included physician buy-in, staff resources, and correct utilisation of technology, while identified barriers included time investment required and technical issues. CONCLUSION: Both telephone and videoconsult modalities are being used to deliver synchronous telepharmacy services across a range of outpatient services. Although more evidence is needed, data to date supports positive service benefits and enhanced care.

Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Position Statement: 2022 update to the safe handling of monoclonal antibodies in healthcare settings.

AIM: The aims were to (a) review the scientific literature on occupational risk, including exposure mechanisms and risk assessment, with regards to handling monoclonal antibodies (mABs) in healthcare settings; and (b) update the recommendations in the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) safe handling of monoclonal antibodies in healthcare settings position statement, published in 2013. METHODS: A literature search was conducted between April 24, 2022, and July 3, 2022, to identify evidence relating to occupational exposure and handling of mABs in healthcare settings. Evidence in the literature was compared to the Position Statement published in 2013, and any potential additions, deletions, or revisions were discussed by the authors, and then agreed changes were made. RESULTS: Thirty-nine references were included in this update, comprising of the 2013 Position Statement itself and 10 of its references, as well as 28 new references. The risks to healthcare workers in the preparation and administration of mABs arise from four distinct exposure mechanisms: dermal, mucosal, inhalation, and oral. Updates included recommendations on using protective eyewear during the preparation and administration of mABs, developing a local institutional risk assessment tool and handling recommendations, considerations for using closed system transfer devices, and to have awareness of the nomenclature change from 2021 for new mABs. CONCLUSION: Practitioners should follow the 14 recommendations to lower occupational risk when handling mABs. Another Position Statement update should occur in 5-10 years to ensure the currency of recommendations.

An evaluation of telephone versus videoconference consults for pre-treatment medication history taking by cancer pharmacists.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim was to compare the successful completion rates of pre-treatment medication history consults conducted by pharmacists with patients either via an unscheduled telephone consult (current standard care) or a scheduled videoconference consult model. Secondary aims were to examine pharmacist perceptions of the telephone and videoconference consults and explore patient (+/- support person) perceptions of videoconference consults. METHOD: Completion data were collected and compared for the two modalities. In addition, pharmacists commented on any positive/negative factors impacting all consults. For the final 35 participants completing a videoconference consult, patients, support people, and pharmacists involved, completed a survey exploring perceptions and satisfaction. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate (p < 0.0001) was found for the videoconferencing model, with 94% (76 of 81) completed successfully compared to 72% (76 of 105) of the unscheduled telephone consults. Pharmacists reported multiple factors impacting the success of the telephone consults including scheduling issues and patient factors. Survey responses revealed that 100% of patients/support people and 82% of pharmacists reported satisfaction with videoconference consults. Surveyed participants noted some technical issues, however, the 'ability to show/view medication containers and/or labels' and 'convenience of scheduled time' were benefits of the videoconference model. DISCUSSION: Results indicate that pre-treatment medication history consults should be offered via videoconference to maximise success.

A smartphone program to support adherence to oral chemotherapy in people with cancer: Proof-of-concept trial.

AIM: Nonadherence to oral chemotherapy (OC) can lead to health complications, including premature death. Mobile phones are increasingly used to deliver medication adherence interventions. However, there is limited evidence about mobile phone-based interventions to increase adherence to OC, specifically. This study explores the proof-of-concept of a smartphone program to support adherence to OC in people with cancer. METHODS: This was a 10-week, nonrandomized, multisite trial. The outcomes assessed were acceptability, satisfaction with the intervention, adherence to OC, knowledge about OC, and side-effects presence and severity. The program consisted of short message service (SMS) reminders to take OC, as well as information about OC, including the management of side-effects. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants (17-74 y/o, median age 60 y/o) were recruited at six hospitals. The sample included 10 different cancer diagnoses (predominance of breast cancer) and 11 OC medications. Acceptability of the intervention was high, with 95% of the enrolled participants completing postintervention measures, and 81% reporting high satisfaction with the program. The intervention was found to have no effect on supporting adherence to OC (assessed by self-report and medication event monitoring system) in this sample. An increase in knowledge about OC was observed at postintervention (p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated proof-of-concept of the smartphone program and highlighted the need for intervention and trial design-related refinements. Future work should evaluate the effect of the program on adherence to OC with nonadherent patients.

Changing from telephone to videoconference for pre-treatment pharmacist consults in cancer services: Impacts to funding and time efficiency.

Introduction: This study examined the reimbursement opportunity and the time efficiency of a standard care model of unscheduled telephone consults compared to scheduled videoconference consults for obtaining pre-treatment medication histories for patients with cancer. Methods: Data related to (a) the available and the claimed activity-based funding for both models and (b) the number of contacts and the duration of each contact to complete the patient's medication history via either unscheduled telephone or scheduled videoconference consults were collected and compared. Results: Data was collected for 86 telephone and 56 videoconference consults. The actual activity-based funding claimed for telephone consults was $0, even though $86 of activity-based funding was available for each consult. This represented a $0 reimbursement for the staff time spent conducting the telephone consults, and a missed opportunity to claim $86 per consult. Activity-based funding was claimed for all but one videoconference consult with an average of $205 received per consult, when $221 per consult was available. Videoconference consults were an average of 2.3 min shorter than telephone consults. Discussion: When compared to unscheduled telephone consults, the scheduled videoconference consults represented increased reimbursement and equivalent time efficiency for the cancer pharmacist completing pre-treatment medication histories.

Partnering with general practitioners to optimize survivorship for patients with lymphoma: a phase II randomized controlled trial (the GOSPEL I trial).

BACKGROUND: Survival rates for lymphoma are highest amongst hematological malignancies. In 2019, it was estimated that over 6400 Australians were diagnosed with lymphoma, a group of hematological malignancies with a high 5-year survival rate of ~ 76%. There is an increased focus on the promotion of wellness in survivorship and active approaches to reducing morbidity related to treatment; however, current models of follow-up care heavily rely on hospital-based specialist-led care. Maximizing the potential of general practitioners (GPs) in the ongoing management of cancer is consistent with the national health reform principles and the Cancer Council Australia's Optimal Care Pathways. GPs are well positioned to provide guideline-based follow-up care and are more likely to address comorbidities and psychosocial issues and promote healthy lifestyle behaviors. This study aims to test the feasibility of the GOSPEL I intervention for implementing an integrated, shared care model in which cancer center specialists and community-based GPs collaborate to provide survivorship care for patients with lymphoma. METHODS: We describe a protocol for a phase II, randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms and a 1:1 allocation. Sixty patients with Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma will be randomized to usual specialist-led follow-up care (as determined by the treating hematologists) or a shared follow-up care intervention (i.e., GOSPEL I). GOSPEL I is a nurse-enabled, pre-specified shared care pathway with follow-up responsibilities shared between cancer center specialists (i.e., hematologists and specialist cancer nurses) and GPs. Outcome measures assess feasibility as well as a range of patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma, patient experience of care, symptom distress, comorbidity burden, dietary intake, physical activity behaviors, financial distress/interference, and satisfaction of care. Safety indicators including hospital admission and unscheduled lymphoma clinic visits as well as process outcomes such as intervention fidelity and economic indicators will be analyzed. DISCUSSION: This trial is designed to explore the feasibility and acceptability of a new model of shared care for lymphoma survivors. Patient-reported outcomes as well as potential barriers to implementation will be analyzed to inform a larger definitive clinical trial testing the effects and implementation of a shared care model on health-related quality of life of lymphoma survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000594921 . Registered on 22 May 2020.

Implementing a nurse-enabled, integrated, shared-care model involving specialists and general practitioners in breast cancer post-treatment follow-up: a study protocol for a phase II randomised controlled trial (the EMINENT trial).

BACKGROUND: Due to advances in early detection and cancer treatment, 5-year relative survival rates for early breast cancer surpass 90% in developed nations. There is increasing focus on promotion of wellness in survivorship and active approaches to reducing morbidity related to treatment; however, current models of follow-up care are heavily reliant on hospital-based specialist-led care. This study aims to test the feasibility of the EMINENT intervention for implementing an integrated, shared-care model involving both cancer centre specialists and community-based general practitioners for early breast cancer post-treatment follow-up. METHODS: We describe a protocol for a phase II, randomised controlled trial with two parallel arms and 1:1 allocation. A total of 60 patients with early-stage breast cancer will be randomised to usual, specialist-led, follow-up care (as determined by the treating surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists) or shared follow-up care intervention (i.e. EMINENT). EMINENT is a nurse-enabled, pre-specified shared-care pathway with follow-up responsibilities divided between cancer centre specialists (i.e. surgeons and oncologists) and general practitioners. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer. Secondary outcomes include patient experience, acceptance, and satisfaction of care; dietary, physical activity, and sedentary behaviours; financial toxicity; adherence; health resource utilisation; and adverse events. DISCUSSION: The trial is designed to identify the barriers to implementing a shared-care model for breast cancer survivors following treatment. Results of this study will inform a definitive trial testing the effects of shared-care model on health-related quality of life of breast cancer survivors, as well as its ability to alleviate the growing demands on the healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001594112 . Registered on 19 November 2019.