Development and use of an innovative Gap Finding Tool to create a Pharmaceutical Care Model within a paediatric oncology setting.

INTRODUCTION: A paediatric cancer ward is a setting where pharmacists participate in direct patient care, acting as coordinators between the patient, caregivers and healthcare professionals. The aim of the study was to develop a Gap Finding Tool to support the setting up of a pharmaceutical care model at a Paediatric-Adolescent Cancer Ward. METHODS: The Standards of Practice for Clinical Pharmacy Services by the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia Committee of Specialty Practice in Clinical Pharmacy (2013), the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (2014) and the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (2014) were used to compile the Gap Finding Tool. The developed Tool was tested for content validity by a panel of experts and subsequently implemented over 2 months. RESULTS: The Gap Finding Tool comprised of nine sections with an average of eight statements each about pharmacy services that should be provided at ward level. For each statement, the rater indicates whether these contributions are provided. When the Tool was implemented at the Paediatric-Adolescent Cancer Ward, four major gaps were identified, namely, absence of a clinical pharmacist, lack of medicines information, vetting of chemotherapy prescriptions by pharmacist with limited access to patient data and lack of pharmacist-input on medicines availability. Processes requiring optimisation included discharge medication advice and documentation processes. CONCLUSION: The developed Gap Finding Tool is an innovative tool which is versatile and can be used in ward or ambulatory clinical settings to identify gaps in pharmaceutical processes and services and compare national or regional practices to international standards.

Diagnostics and treatment of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: where do we stand?

INTRODUCTION: Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) is a rare clinically, neuro-radiologically, and molecularly defined malignancy of the brainstem with a median overall survival of approximately 11 months. Our aim is to evaluate the current tendency for its treatment in Europe in order to develop (inter)national consensus guidelines. METHODS: Healthcare professionals specialized in DIPG were asked to fill in an online survey with questions regarding usual treatment strategies at diagnosis and at disease progression in their countries and/or their centers, respectively. RESULTS: Seventy-four healthcare professionals responded to the survey, of which 87.8% were pediatric oncologists. Only 13.5% of the respondents biopsy all of their patients, 41.9% biopsy their patients infrequently. More than half of the respondents (54.1%) treated their patients with radiotherapy only at diagnosis, whereas 44.6% preferred radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy. When the disease progresses, treatment strategies became even more diverse, and the tendency for no treatment increased from 1.4% at diagnosis to 77.0% after second progression. 36.5% of the healthcare professionals treat children younger than 3 years differently than older children at diagnosis. This percentage decreased, when the disease progresses. Most of the participants (51.4%) included less than 25% of their patients in clinical trials. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrates a large heterogeneity of treatment regimens, especially at disease progression. We emphasize the need for international consensus guidelines for the treatment of DIPG, possible by more collaborative clinical trials.