Crushing oral solid drugs: Assessment of nursing practices in health-care facilities in Auvergne, France.

Iatrogenic harm from crushing oral drugs, a common but hazardous practice, can be largely avoided by following recommendations for good practice. The aims of this study were to evaluate the frequency of tablet crushing and opening capsules in hospitals and to compare the nursing practices with national recommendations. From 46 health facilities in Auvergne, 1110 nurses answered an anonymous self-completed questionnaire between September and November 2014 regarding general medication issues, prescription, preparation and administration of crushed medications. Crushing tablets or opening capsules was reported as a daily practice for 28% (increasing to 67% in geriatric units). While most best practice recommendations were followed by most nurses, scope for improvement remained: pharmacists were rarely contacted, rationales for change of medication formulation were seldom recorded in patients' files and medications were often crushed and administered together, risking drug interactions. Study data were used to inform recommendations for practice improvement. As findings bear similarities to those from other countries, this may be a widespread issue and study recommendations may be widely relevant. Practice will be reviewed again once practice improvement has been completed.

[Region-wide professional practice evaluation with regards to antiemetic prescription into chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting]. / Évaluation régionale des pratiques professionnelles sur l'utilisation des antiémétiques chez les patients atteints de cancer.

The anticancer drug technical commission (COTECH) of the Auvergne OMEDIT has set up a region-wide professional practice evaluation (PPE) with regards to antiemetic prescription practices in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in order to evaluate their compliance with OMEDIT's guidelines. Are not included pediatric and hematologic protocols. A prospective survey was carried from November 2013 to January 2014 out in 14 medical centers in Auvergne. This clinical audit was based on the HAS (national healthcare authority) framework and used as a reference regional standards based on the MASCC Antiemetic Guidelines. Altogether, 346 antiemetic prescriptions were compared to guidelines. We observed respectively 81 % and 42 % conformity rates in acute and delayed emesis for high emesis risk chemotherapy (HE); 86 % and 35 % conformity rates in acute and delayed emesis for moderate emesis risk chemotherapy (ME); 66 % and 85 % conformity rates in acute and delayed emesis for low emesis risk chemotherapy (LE). These results highlight deficiencies in compliance with guidelines, especially in the management of delayed CINV in HE and ME chemotherapy. The COTECH identified three priority improvement areas: under-prescribe NK1 antagonists in HE cure; under-prescribe corticosteroid; over-prescribe 5HT3 antagonists for delayed emesis. The COTECH is publicizing these results all over the Auvergne region, together with a reminder of recommendations.

Comparison of two transarterial chemoembolization strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM: This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of and tolerance to two center-related conventional transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) strategies in the management of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All HCC patients in whom TACE was initiated in the two centers from June 2008 to July 2011 were included. The TACE strategy performed in center 1 was "on demand" with selective injections of idarubicin, whereas the TACE strategy in center 2 was based "on scheduled" non-selective injections of epirubicin. Toxicity was evaluated using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty HCC patients were included. Median time to treatment failure was significantly higher in center 1, 13.1 months vs. 7.9 months in center 2 (hazard ratio, 2.32; p<10-3 in multivariate analysis). Median overall survival was 21.1 months in center 1 vs. 18.4 months in center 2 (p=NS). The proportion of grade ≥ 3 adverse events and mean hospitalisation duration for the overall TACE treatment were significantly greater in center 2 than in center 1: 56% vs. 32% (p<0.01) and 14.2 ± 7.2 days vs. 10.3 ± 7.0 days (p<0.01), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results failed to show any significant survival differences between two center-related TACE strategies but showed a significantly smaller proportion of grade ≥ 3 adverse events and shorter hospitalisation for the overall treatment when the "on-demand" strategy was used.