PURPOSE: Adherence to guideline-consistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is suboptimal. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of compliance to institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis using a computerized physician order entry system at a single tertiary care institution. A nurse survey was also performed to evaluate how oncology practices, within a cooperative group, managed clinician orders for the prevention of CINV. METHODS: The electronic medical records of 100 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoint was the incidence of compliance to provide all aspects of scheduled institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis for acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-4) CINV. A descriptive analysis was performed on the convenience sample. Logistic regression was completed to determine the predictors of noncompliance. RESULTS: The incidence of compliance on days 1-4 was 94 %. Half of the noncompliant events (three of six, 50 %) occurred on day 1 alone and involved patients receiving low-emetogenic chemotherapy. There was a high degree of compliance to institutional guidelines for the treatment of delayed CINV (97 %). Patients receiving minimally emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (N = 70) were observed to be 100 % compliant. Patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide were numerically less likely to receive institutional guidelines, compared to patients receiving other chemotherapy regimens (OR, 0.24 (0.04, 1.36), p value, 0.05). The nurse survey suggested significant variability amongst the involved institutions with regards to antiemetic prescribing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized physician order entry is associated with impressive adherence to clinician-prescribing practices, according to institutional guidelines, for acute and delayed CINV.
PURPOSE: Adherence to guideline-consistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is suboptimal. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of compliance to institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis using a computerized physician order entry system at a single tertiary care institution. A nurse survey was also performed to evaluate how oncology practices, within a cooperative group, managed clinician orders for the prevention of CINV. METHODS: The electronic medical records of 100 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoint was the incidence of compliance to provide all aspects of scheduled institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis for acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-4) CINV. A descriptive analysis was performed on the convenience sample. Logistic regression was completed to determine the predictors of noncompliance. RESULTS: The incidence of compliance on days 1-4 was 94 %. Half of the noncompliant events (three of six, 50 %) occurred on day 1 alone and involved patients receiving low-emetogenic chemotherapy. There was a high degree of compliance to institutional guidelines for the treatment of delayed CINV (97 %). Patients receiving minimally emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (N = 70) were observed to be 100 % compliant. Patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide were numerically less likely to receive institutional guidelines, compared to patients receiving other chemotherapy regimens (OR, 0.24 (0.04, 1.36), p value, 0.05). The nurse survey suggested significant variability amongst the involved institutions with regards to antiemetic prescribing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized physician order entry is associated with impressive adherence to clinician-prescribing practices, according to institutional guidelines, for acute and delayed CINV.
Authors: Ethan Basch; Ann Alexis Prestrud; Paul J Hesketh; Mark G Kris; Petra C Feyer; Mark R Somerfield; Maurice Chesney; Rebecca Anne Clark-Snow; Anne Marie Flaherty; Barbara Freundlich; Gary Morrow; Kamakshi V Rao; Rowena N Schwartz; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C L Loprinzi; S R Alberts; B J Christensen; L J Hanson; D R Farley; J K Broers; D L Betcher; R E Grady; P A Southorn; T M Johnson; E A Perez Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel; Otávio Augusto C Clark; Luciana Clark; Luciano Paladini; Enéas Faleiros; Bruna Pegoretti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-05-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hanno Riess; Cihan Ay; Rupert Bauersachs; Cecilia Becattini; Jan Beyer-Westendorf; Francis Cajfinger; Ian Chau; Alexander T Cohen; Alok A Khorana; Anthony Maraveyas; Marcos Renni; Annie M Young Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-04-12
Authors: Daniel S Childs; Sherry Looker; Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Aminah Jatoi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 3.603