Global changes to the chemotherapy service during the covid-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to chemotherapy services were implemented as a means of managing imposed workload strains within health services and protecting patients from contracting COVID-19. Given the rapidly evolving nature of the pandemic many changes were rapidly adopted and were not substantiated by robust evidence. This study aimed to describe the changes adopted internationally to chemotherapy services, which may be used to guide future changes to treatment delivery. METHODS: A survey was developed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapies (SACT). It comprised 22 questions and examined the strategies implemented during the pandemic to prioritise and protect patients receiving SACT and the participants' professional opinion of the strategies employed. The survey was available in English, Spanish and French and was distributed via professional bodies. RESULTS: 129 responses were obtained from healthcare professionals working across 17 different countries. 45% of institutions had to implement treatment prioritisation strategies and all hospitals implemented changes in the delivery of treatment, including: reduction in treatments (69%), using less immunosuppressive agents (50%), allowing treatment breaks (14%) and switching to oral therapies (45%). Virtual clinic visits were perceived by participants as the most effective strategy to protect patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has forced chemotherapy healthcare professionals to adopt new ways of working by reducing health interactions. Many areas of research are needed following this period, including understanding patients' perceptions of risks to treatment, utilisation of oral treatments and the impact of treatment breaks on cancer outcomes.

Multicentre evaluation of prescribing concurrence with anti-infective guidelines: epidemiological assessment of indicators.

PURPOSE: To assess indicators for anti-infective prescribing not concurrent with regional pharmacotherapeutic treatment guidelines (PTGs) on infectious diseases. METHODS: A retrospective explorative cohort study based on hospital-wide anti-infective prescription data of a 2-month cross-sectional period (n = 1037). Risk rates (absolute risks: AR), risk rate ratios (relative risks: RR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated for patient, disease, drug, and prescriber variables considered to be potential indicators. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Non-concurrence existed of non-indicated prescribing of (particular) anti-infectives (24.3%) and prescribing of non-first choice anti-infectives (55.2%). Non-concurrent durations of treatment and dosing issues accounted for 17.2% and 16.2% respectively. Non-concurrence was associated with empirical therapy, with certain diagnoses, such as skin and soft tissue, urinary, and osteoarthrological infections, and with prescriptions involving topical dosage forms, cephalosporins, macrolides and lincosamides, and quinolones. There was also an association with certain hospitals and with prescribing by geriatricians, surgeons, pulmonologists, and urologists and, in general, junior clinicians in training. CONCLUSIONS: Other hospitals could use our epidemiological framework to identify their own indicators for non-concurrent prescribing. Our findings suggest tailor-made enforcement of PTG adherence for certain prescribers while conversely, adaptation of the PTGs will be required for some infectious diseases.

Cost-benefit analysis of the detection of prescribing errors by hospital pharmacy staff.

OBJECTIVE: Prescribing errors are a major cause of iatrogenic patient morbidity and therefore interventions aimed at preventing the adverse outcomes of these errors are likely to result in cost reduction. However, it is unclear whether the costs associated with these preventive measures are outweighed by the cost reductions (benefits). Therefore, a study was set up to analyse costs and benefits of detecting prescribing errors by hospital pharmacy staff. DESIGN: During 5 consecutive days in two Dutch hospitals in February 2000 all medication orders, in which prescribing errors were detected, were analysed. A cost-benefit analysis was performed, based on direct medical costs only. The benefit-to-cost ratio was calculated by taking into account the net time hospital pharmacy staff needed for the prevention of the error (this included potential time saving for nursing staff, when an error was prevented by hospital pharmacy staff instead of nursing staff), as well as taking into account the possible consequences of the prescribing error (were the error not prevented). RESULTS: A total of 3540 orders, of which 351 contained prescribing errors (9.9%), were analysed. During the 1-week period investigated, time-investment of the pharmacy staff had net costs of EUR285 (2000 values). During the same period estimated benefits related to this investment were EUR9867. The finding of higher benefits than costs was robust in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: From this study it can be concluded that prevention of prescribing errors by hospital pharmacy staff results in higher benefits than the costs related to the net time investment.