Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres: Questionnaire survey

Saul N. Weingart, Jonathan Flug, Daniela Brouillard, Laurinda Morway, Ann Partridge, Sylvia Bartel, Lawrence N. Shulman, Maureen Connor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

90 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To characterise current safety practices for the use of oral chemotherapy. Design: Written questionnaire survey of pharmacy directors of cancer centres. Setting: Comprehensive cancer centres in the United States. Results: Respondents from 42 (78%) of 54 eligible centres completed the survey, after consulting with 89 colleagues. Clinicians at 29 centres used handwritten prescriptions, two used preprinted paper prescriptions, and six used electronic systems for most oral chemotherapy prescribing. For six commonly used oral chemotherapies, on average 10 centres required a diagnosis on the prescription, 11 required the protocol number, four required the cycle number, nine required double checking by a second clinician, 14 required a calculation of body surface area, and 14 required a calculation of dose per square metre of body surface area. Only a third of centres requested patients' written informed consent when oral chemotherapy was given off protocol. Nearly a quarter (10) of centres had no formal process for monitoring patients' adherence. In the past year respondents at 10 centres reported at least one serious adverse drug event related to oral chemotherapy, and respondents at 13 centres reported a serious near miss. Conclusion: Few of the safeguards routinely used for infusion chemotherapy have been adopted for oral chemotherapy at US cancer centres. There is currently no consensus at these centres about safe medication practices for oral chemotherapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)407-409
Number of pages3
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume334
Issue number7590
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 24 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Safety
Drug Therapy
Neoplasms
Prescriptions
Body Surface Area
Surveys and Questionnaires
Patient Compliance
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Informed Consent
Consensus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Weingart, S. N., Flug, J., Brouillard, D., Morway, L., Partridge, A., Bartel, S., ... Connor, M. (2007). Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres: Questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal, 334(7590), 407-409. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39069.489757.55

Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres : Questionnaire survey. / Weingart, Saul N.; Flug, Jonathan; Brouillard, Daniela; Morway, Laurinda; Partridge, Ann; Bartel, Sylvia; Shulman, Lawrence N.; Connor, Maureen.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 334, No. 7590, 24.02.2007, p. 407-409.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Weingart, SN, Flug, J, Brouillard, D, Morway, L, Partridge, A, Bartel, S, Shulman, LN & Connor, M 2007, 'Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres: Questionnaire survey', British Medical Journal, vol. 334, no. 7590, pp. 407-409. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39069.489757.55
Weingart SN, Flug J, Brouillard D, Morway L, Partridge A, Bartel S et al. Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres: Questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal. 2007 Feb 24;334(7590):407-409. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39069.489757.55
Weingart, Saul N. ; Flug, Jonathan ; Brouillard, Daniela ; Morway, Laurinda ; Partridge, Ann ; Bartel, Sylvia ; Shulman, Lawrence N. ; Connor, Maureen. / Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres : Questionnaire survey. In: British Medical Journal. 2007 ; Vol. 334, No. 7590. pp. 407-409.
@article{803eee4ef5054eb7b3c3c23282149181,
title = "Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres: Questionnaire survey",
abstract = "Objective: To characterise current safety practices for the use of oral chemotherapy. Design: Written questionnaire survey of pharmacy directors of cancer centres. Setting: Comprehensive cancer centres in the United States. Results: Respondents from 42 (78{\%}) of 54 eligible centres completed the survey, after consulting with 89 colleagues. Clinicians at 29 centres used handwritten prescriptions, two used preprinted paper prescriptions, and six used electronic systems for most oral chemotherapy prescribing. For six commonly used oral chemotherapies, on average 10 centres required a diagnosis on the prescription, 11 required the protocol number, four required the cycle number, nine required double checking by a second clinician, 14 required a calculation of body surface area, and 14 required a calculation of dose per square metre of body surface area. Only a third of centres requested patients' written informed consent when oral chemotherapy was given off protocol. Nearly a quarter (10) of centres had no formal process for monitoring patients' adherence. In the past year respondents at 10 centres reported at least one serious adverse drug event related to oral chemotherapy, and respondents at 13 centres reported a serious near miss. Conclusion: Few of the safeguards routinely used for infusion chemotherapy have been adopted for oral chemotherapy at US cancer centres. There is currently no consensus at these centres about safe medication practices for oral chemotherapy.",
author = "Weingart, {Saul N.} and Jonathan Flug and Daniela Brouillard and Laurinda Morway and Ann Partridge and Sylvia Bartel and Shulman, {Lawrence N.} and Maureen Connor",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.39069.489757.55",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "334",
pages = "407--409",
journal = "The BMJ",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7590",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres

T2 - Questionnaire survey

AU - Weingart, Saul N.

AU - Flug, Jonathan

AU - Brouillard, Daniela

AU - Morway, Laurinda

AU - Partridge, Ann

AU - Bartel, Sylvia

AU - Shulman, Lawrence N.

AU - Connor, Maureen

PY - 2007/2/24

Y1 - 2007/2/24

N2 - Objective: To characterise current safety practices for the use of oral chemotherapy. Design: Written questionnaire survey of pharmacy directors of cancer centres. Setting: Comprehensive cancer centres in the United States. Results: Respondents from 42 (78%) of 54 eligible centres completed the survey, after consulting with 89 colleagues. Clinicians at 29 centres used handwritten prescriptions, two used preprinted paper prescriptions, and six used electronic systems for most oral chemotherapy prescribing. For six commonly used oral chemotherapies, on average 10 centres required a diagnosis on the prescription, 11 required the protocol number, four required the cycle number, nine required double checking by a second clinician, 14 required a calculation of body surface area, and 14 required a calculation of dose per square metre of body surface area. Only a third of centres requested patients' written informed consent when oral chemotherapy was given off protocol. Nearly a quarter (10) of centres had no formal process for monitoring patients' adherence. In the past year respondents at 10 centres reported at least one serious adverse drug event related to oral chemotherapy, and respondents at 13 centres reported a serious near miss. Conclusion: Few of the safeguards routinely used for infusion chemotherapy have been adopted for oral chemotherapy at US cancer centres. There is currently no consensus at these centres about safe medication practices for oral chemotherapy.

AB - Objective: To characterise current safety practices for the use of oral chemotherapy. Design: Written questionnaire survey of pharmacy directors of cancer centres. Setting: Comprehensive cancer centres in the United States. Results: Respondents from 42 (78%) of 54 eligible centres completed the survey, after consulting with 89 colleagues. Clinicians at 29 centres used handwritten prescriptions, two used preprinted paper prescriptions, and six used electronic systems for most oral chemotherapy prescribing. For six commonly used oral chemotherapies, on average 10 centres required a diagnosis on the prescription, 11 required the protocol number, four required the cycle number, nine required double checking by a second clinician, 14 required a calculation of body surface area, and 14 required a calculation of dose per square metre of body surface area. Only a third of centres requested patients' written informed consent when oral chemotherapy was given off protocol. Nearly a quarter (10) of centres had no formal process for monitoring patients' adherence. In the past year respondents at 10 centres reported at least one serious adverse drug event related to oral chemotherapy, and respondents at 13 centres reported a serious near miss. Conclusion: Few of the safeguards routinely used for infusion chemotherapy have been adopted for oral chemotherapy at US cancer centres. There is currently no consensus at these centres about safe medication practices for oral chemotherapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847692398&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847692398&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.39069.489757.55

DO - 10.1136/bmj.39069.489757.55

M3 - Article

C2 - 17223629

AN - SCOPUS:33847692398

VL - 334

SP - 407

EP - 409

JO - The BMJ

JF - The BMJ

SN - 0959-8146

IS - 7590

ER -