PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of performance and outcomes feedback on adherence to clinical practice guidelines regarding chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis (CINE). METHODS: Institutional CINE clinical practice guidelines were developed based on American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. Consecutive administrations of moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy were assessed for errors. Baseline statistical process control (SPC) charts were created and mean errors per administration were calculated. Prospective SPC charts were used to measure the effect of guideline development and distribution, a visiting lecturer, and ongoing feedback regarding compliance with guidelines employing SPC charts. Patients were surveyed regarding the extent and severity of CINE for 5 days postadministration. These outcomes were then shared with physicians. RESULTS: Baseline compliance was poor (mean, 0.87 omissions per chemotherapy administration), largely because of inadequate adherence to recommendations for delayed CINE management. Most patients experienced delayed nausea, particularly on day 3 postchemotherapy. Physician prescribing performance did not undergo sustained improvement despite guideline development or distribution, a lecture by a visiting expert, or sharing of adherence data with clinicians. Once patient outcomes were shared, physicians accepted the need for compliance and instituted nurse practitioner antiemetic prescribing, with almost complete compliance and concurrent measurable reduction in day 3 nausea. SPC charts documented improvements in both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SPC charts effectively monitor ongoing compliance and patient symptoms and represent appropriate outcome measurement and change facilitation tools. However, physician participation in guideline development and evidence of poor compliance alone did not improve prescribing performance. Only evidence of patient CINE experience coupled with noncompliance improved results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of performance and outcomes feedback on adherence to clinical practice guidelines regarding chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis (CINE). METHODS: Institutional CINE clinical practice guidelines were developed based on American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. Consecutive administrations of moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy were assessed for errors. Baseline statistical process control (SPC) charts were created and mean errors per administration were calculated. Prospective SPC charts were used to measure the effect of guideline development and distribution, a visiting lecturer, and ongoing feedback regarding compliance with guidelines employing SPC charts. Patients were surveyed regarding the extent and severity of CINE for 5 days postadministration. These outcomes were then shared with physicians. RESULTS: Baseline compliance was poor (mean, 0.87 omissions per chemotherapy administration), largely because of inadequate adherence to recommendations for delayed CINE management. Most patients experienced delayed nausea, particularly on day 3 postchemotherapy. Physician prescribing performance did not undergo sustained improvement despite guideline development or distribution, a lecture by a visiting expert, or sharing of adherence data with clinicians. Once patient outcomes were shared, physicians accepted the need for compliance and instituted nurse practitioner antiemetic prescribing, with almost complete compliance and concurrent measurable reduction in day 3 nausea. SPC charts documented improvements in both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SPC charts effectively monitor ongoing compliance and patient symptoms and represent appropriate outcome measurement and change facilitation tools. However, physician participation in guideline development and evidence of poor compliance alone did not improve prescribing performance. Only evidence of patientCINE experience coupled with noncompliance improved results.
Authors: Kunal C Kadakia; Alexis D Leal; Drew K Seisler; Rui Qin; Kelliann C Fee-Schroeder; Darryl C Grendahl; Kristine M Sorgatz; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Johan Thor; Jonas Lundberg; Jakob Ask; Jesper Olsson; Cheryl Carli; Karin Pukk Härenstam; Mats Brommels Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2007-10
Authors: Yasmeen Razvi; Stephanie Chan; Thomas McFarlane; Erin McKenzie; Pearl Zaki; Carlo DeAngelis; William Pidduck; Ahmad Bushehri; Edward Chow; Katarzyna Joanna Jerzak Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michelino De Laurentiis; Chiara Bonfadini; Vito Lorusso; Giuseppina Cilenti; Francesca Di Rella; Giuseppe Altavilla; Manuela Otero; Antonio Ardizzoia; Paolo Marchetti; Giorgia Peverelli; Domenico Amoroso; Stefania Vecchio; Elena Fiorio; Simona Orecchia Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Henning Burmeister; Stefan Aebi; Cristina Studer; Martin F Fey; Oliver Gautschi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Matti Aapro; Florian Scotté; Yolanda Escobar; Luigi Celio; Richard Berman; Alessandra Franceschetti; Danielle Bell; Karin Jordan Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-03-17
Authors: Priya Patel; Paula D Robinson; Andrea Orsey; Jason L Freedman; Anne-Marie Langevin; Debbie Woods; Lillian Sung; L Lee Dupuis Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Mary Lou Affronti; Susan M Schneider; James E Herndon; Susan Schlundt; Henry S Friedman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 3.603