An audit to determine the time taken to administer intravenous bisphosphonate infusions in patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer to bone in a hospital setting.

OBJECTIVE: Bone metastases can occur in many forms of cancer. More than two-thirds of women with metastatic breast cancer may be affected by bone metastasis during the course of their disease. Bisphosphonates, which inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, are an established standard of care for patients with bone metastases. For patients with cancer and bone metastases, bisphosphonates are associated with a significant reduction in skeletal-related events such as vertebral fractures, non-vertebral fractures as well as increasing the time to skeletal event. The purpose of this study was to quantify the current time involved in the administration of i.v. bisphosphonates and how this might impact on patient experience and cancer unit capacity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A pilot audit was initially conducted at the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), London (both Chelsea and Sutton sites), and was followed by audits at a further two UK hospital sites: Velindre Hospital, Cardiff and the Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford. The study was conducted between December 2005 and September 2006.
RESULTS: Overall, 151 forms were completed. Of the total patients audited, approximately 71% had a diagnosis of breast cancer. Where data on the reason for attendance were collected (Velindre and the Royal Surrey County Hospital), over 77% of patients attended hospital for the sole reason of having an i.v. bisphosphonate administered. The majority of patients (94%) required cannulation prior to infusion and, at the sites where this information was recorded (Royal Surrey County Hospital and Velindre Hospital), almost one-third of patients required two or more attempts before they were successfully cannulated. The time that the patients spent on the unit where the i.v. bisphosphonates were administered was greater for patients receiving pamidronate compared to those receiving zoledronic acid (2 h 36 min and 1 h 38 min, respectively). The magnitude of the difference was not as great as would be expected considering zoledronic acid should take one-sixth of the time to administer (Royal Marsden Hospital, pamidronate 1 h 29 min, zoledronic acid 18 min: Royal Surrey County Hospital, zoledronic acid 21 min: Velindre Hospital, pamidronate 1 h 42 min, zoledronic acid 17 min).
CONCLUSIONS: I.v. bisphosphonates are accepted as standard clinical practice for the management of metastatic bone disease. They are often prescribed for long periods of time, so tolerability and patient acceptability are important factors in therapy. The administration of i.v. bisphosphonates contributes a substantial time burden for patients travelling to the hospital, considering that in most cases the purpose is for this treatment only. It also places a significant burden on hospital resources, creating capacity planning challenges. Receiving an i.v. bisphosphonate also has other disadvantages associated with it, such as the need for patients to undergo repeated cannulation. Service redesign, such as home administration of i.v. bisphosphonates, could help to overcome issues highlighted in this audit. The use of oral alternatives to pamidronate and zoledronic acid which may be more convenient for patients, and perhaps also cost-effective, should also be of ongoing interest.