Literature DB >> 26287033

Assessing the impact of a targeted electronic medical record intervention on the use of growth factor in cancer patients.

Jordan N Bernens1, Kara Hartman, Brendan Curley, Sijin Wen, Jane Rogers, Jame Abraham, Michael Newton.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving chemotherapy are at risk for febrile neutropenia following treatment. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend screening patients for risk of febrile neutropenia and risk stratification based on likelihood of febrile neutropenia events. The impact of the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) system on physician compliance with growth factor support guidelines has not been studied.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether implementation of automated orders in EMRs can improve adherence to national guidelines in prophylactic G-CSF use in chemotherapy patients.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy from January 1, 2007 to August 1, 2008 (pre- EMR) and January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (post-EMR) was conducted. Institutional adherence to ASCO and NCCN guidelines for G-CSF after the implementation of automatic electronic orders for pegfilgrastim in patients who received a high-risk chemotherapy regimen were examined. The results were compared with a similar study that had been conducted before the implementation of the EMR system.
RESULTS: The number of regimens that included guideline-driven growth factor usage and nonusage was 75.6% in the post-intervention arm, compared with 67.5% in the pre-intervention arm. This is a statistically significant difference between the pre-EMR and post-EMR compliance with national guidelines on growth factor usage ( P = .041, based on chi-square test). The post-EMR implementation data of 1,042 individual new chemotherapy regimens showed correct use of G-CSF in 89.13% high-risk chemotherapy regimens and 58.74% intermediate-risk regimens, with risk factors and incorrect usage in 26.23% of intermediate-risk regimens without risk factors and 19.34% of low-risk regimens. The appropriateness of use in high- and low-risk regimens was the most compliant, because growth factor was built into chemotherapy plans of high-risk regimens and omitted from low-risk regimens. LIMITATIONS: This project was limited by a change in EMR systems at West Virginia University hospitals on January 1, 2009. All pre- EMR data was collected before 2009 and could not be further collected once the project began in 2013.
CONCLUSIONS: Appropriateness of growth factor usage can be improved when integrated into an EMR. This can improve compliance and adherence to national recommendations. Further development and understanding of EMR is needed to improve usage to meet national guidelines, with particular attention paid to integration of risk factors into EMR to improve growth factor usage compliance. ©2015 Frontline Medical Communications.

Entities:  

Year:  2015        PMID: 26287033      PMCID: PMC4792513          DOI: 10.12788/jcso.0117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Support Oncol        ISSN: 2330-7749


  9 in total

1.  Growth in US health spending remained slow in 2010; health share of gross domestic product was unchanged from 2009.

Authors:  Anne B Martin; David Lassman; Benjamin Washington; Aaron Catlin
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  A process for measuring the quality of cancer care: the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

Authors:  Michael N Neuss; Christopher E Desch; Kristen K McNiff; Peter D Eisenberg; Dean H Gesme; Joseph O Jacobson; Mohammad Jahanzeb; Jennifer J Padberg; John M Rainey; Jeff J Guo; Joseph V Simone
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-08-08       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients.

Authors:  Nicole M Kuderer; David C Dale; Jeffrey Crawford; Leon E Cosler; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Authors:  Adi Eldar-Lissai; Leon E Cosler; Eva Culakova; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 5.  Use of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to support delivery of chemotherapy: twenty years of clinical experience.

Authors:  William Renwick; Ruth Pettengell; Michael Green
Journal:  BioDrugs       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.807

Review 6.  The economics of the colony-stimulating factors in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia.

Authors:  G H Lyman; N M Kuderer
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 6.312

Review 7.  Impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia and mortality in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nicole M Kuderer; David C Dale; Jeffrey Crawford; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-07-20       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Short-term costs associated with primary prophylactic G-CSF use during chemotherapy.

Authors:  Suja S Rajan; William R Carpenter; Sally C Stearns; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.229

Review 9.  Colony-stimulating factors: clinical evidence for treatment and prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

Authors:  César Gómez Raposo; Alvaro Pinto Marín; Manuel González Barón
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.340

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Overuse and underuse of pegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia.

Authors:  Andrew R Zullo; Uvette Lou; Sarah E Cabral; Justin Huynh; Christine M Berard-Collins
Journal:  J Oncol Pharm Pract       Date:  2018-08-19       Impact factor: 1.809

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.