Clinical and economic impact of oncology-trained pharmacist integration in an ambulatory cancer clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Outpatient oncology practice is a growing area of opportunity for pharmacists to provide clinical services and evidence-based care. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective chart review analyzed the clinical and economic benefits of a board-certified oncology pharmacist after integration into the ambulatory oncology clinic setting. Primary outcomes were total cost avoidance for pharmacist interventions and impact on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) OP-35 measures. Pharmacist interventions were characterized into distinct types which were then assigned a cost avoidance value. Cost avoidance was calculated per hour and then extrapolated to a yearly estimate based on a 40-h work week for one year for one full-time equivalent pharmacist. Data collection for the primary clinical outcome was performed by compiling provider-specific emergency department (ED) and inpatient admission rates for diagnoses specified in CMS OP-35 measures within 30 days after receiving outpatient chemotherapy. The rates for the data collection period were compared to the rates six months prior to pharmacist integration to assess pharmacist impact. RESULTS: In six months, 516 total interventions were made by the oncology pharmacist. The incidence of ED visits was 3.34% and 1.72% during the pre- and post-pharmacist intervention periods, respectively. The incidence of inpatient admissions was 2.43% and 0.34% pre- and post-pharmacist intervention, respectively. Total cost avoidance was estimated to be US$375,795 and when accounted for the median pharmacist salary at our institution, total cost savings was US$204,437. CONCLUSION: The presence of an oncology pharmacist specialist in the ambulatory cancer clinic provided clinical and economic benefits to the cancer clinic.

Creation and evaluation of a cancer chemotherapy order review guide for use at a community hospital.

The proper evaluation of cancer chemotherapy orders is necessary for patients to receive safe and effective treatment. The chemotherapy treatment setting is evolving resulting in hospital pharmacists without extensive oncology training or experience now being responsible for evaluation of chemotherapy orders. The primary objective was to create a step-by-step chemotherapy order evaluation guide with a detailed explanation for each step. The secondary objective was to evaluate non-oncology trained pharmacists' ability to accurately review simulated chemotherapy orders post-education using the guide. A two-page chemotherapy order evaluation guide was created based on an accepted method of chemotherapy order review consisting of the following eight steps: regimen verification, clinical trial protocol verification, body surface area calculation, dose calculation, laboratory values, emesis prophylaxis, adjunctive or supportive care measures, and pharmacy labels. A literature search was performed for each step. A detailed explanation for each step was written as a separate component from the guide to encompass the literature search information and current guidelines in a more comprehensive manner. Non-oncology trained community hospital pharmacists were educated on use of the guide for approximately 30 min. The guide was evaluated using timed simulated chemotherapy orders pre- and post-education consisting of a general chemotherapy order and a carboplatin dosing order. Nineteen pharmacists were tested with simulated chemotherapy orders. A significant difference was detected between the pre- and post-education for both the general chemotherapy (p = 0.00032) order and carboplatin dosing order (p = 0.031).

Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (RVD) Regimen for Multiple Myeloma.

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases. Questions or suggestions for topics should be addressed to Dominic A. Solimando, Jr, President, Oncology Pharmacy Services, Inc., 4201 Wilson Blvd #110-545, Arlington, VA 22203, e-mail: OncRxSvc@comcast.net; or J. Aubrey Waddell, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy; Oncology Pharmacist, Pharmacy Department, Blount Memorial Hospital, 907 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37804, e-mail: waddfour@charter.net. The information presented in this review is based on published data and clinical expertise and includes information not included in the product labeling. Incorporation of such published data provides a more robust assessment of the drugs and assists pharmacists in evaluation of orders for off-label use of these agents.