Identifying Training Needs and Active Information Opportunities in Primary Care Through the Analysis of Drug Information Requests.

INTRODUCTION: Drug information (DI) services should work toward efficiency by identifying knowledge gaps and actively creating resources to address those needs. The aim was to identify training needs and active information opportunities in primary care by analyzing DI requests and to calculate labor cost associated with DI requests addressable with training or active information. METHODS: DI requests received in 2016 and 2017 by ambulatory care pharmacists were independently classified by 2 authors into: training (i.e., delivery of content meant to be retained as knowledge and used when needed); active information (i.e., resources created preemptively and consulted when needed); or passive information (i.e., not addressable with training or active information). Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's Kappa. Median time spent by category and across practice settings/professional types was compared using bivariate analysis. Thematic analysis categorized specific training and active DI requests and labor costs were calculated. RESULTS: Of 2,041 DI requests, 330 (16.2%) were classified as training, 454 (22.2%) active information, and 1257 (61.6%) passive information (kappa = 0.769). Median (IQR) time to resolve requests was 5 (2-10) mins for training, 5 (3-11) active information, and 10 (4-15) passive information. Pharmacists spent 132.1 hrs = $8,956.98 answering questions addressable with training or active information. Areas warranting training or active information included: controlled substances, immunizations, patient assistance programs, policy/regulations, medication preparation/administration, storage/stability, disposal, availability/ordering medications, and patient-related resources. CONCLUSION: Several opportunities for training and active information were identified. Despite the single-institution nature, the method described can serve as an example for other institutions.

Reporting of paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy symptoms to clinicians among women with breast cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Cases of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) under-reporting have been sporadically described in the literature, but no studies have focused on actively examining this behavior. Our primary aim was to identify women who purposefully under-reported CIPN, along with reasons for doing so. A secondary aim was to explore factors enabling or hindering communication of CIPN to clinicians. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer who had received paclitaxel in a prospective observational study. The interview guide was developed based on factors hypothesized to influence side effect disclosure to clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically content analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-four women were interviewed. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: (1) enablers of CIPN reporting (e.g., positive relationship with the oncology team, sufficient appointment time, existence of alternative communication channels to office visits, expectation of CIPN as a side effect); (2) deterrents to CIPN reporting (e.g., perception of need to complete the full course of therapy, fear of treatment discontinuation, lack of knowledge of long-term consequences of CIPN); and (3) balancing survival versus functional impairment due to CIPN. Women prioritized efficacy over CIPN until physical functioning was meaningfully affected. No patients reported purposeful CIPN under-reporting, but three women admitted having considered doing so. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of evidence of CIPN withholding, women considered both the effectiveness and the toxicity of paclitaxel treatment, as well as beliefs about treatment and long-term consequences of CIPN and relationship with the oncology team, when deciding whether to report CIPN symptoms.