Midori Nakagaki1,2, Nicole C Gavin3,4,5, Alexandra Clavarino6, Glen A Kennedy3,4, Karen Whitfield7,8. 1. Pharmacy Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Midori.nakagaki@health.qld.gov.au. 2. School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Midori.nakagaki@health.qld.gov.au. 3. Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 4. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 5. School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 6. Faculty of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 7. Pharmacy Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 8. School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Oral mucositis is a common complication in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Accurate oral mucositis grading is essential for both clinical practice and oral mucositis research. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of daily oral mucositis grading by nurses in a tertiary hospital in Australia. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken to review the daily patient oral assessment record, including diet, pain, erythema, ulceration and the oral mucositis grade based on World Health Organization (WHO) oral mucositis grading scale. The accuracy of the grade was determined by the observations recorded, and reasons for inaccuracy were documented. Any repetition of the same error in the same patient was noted. RESULTS: In total, 6841 oral assessments in 373 patients, conducted between 2017 and 2020, were reviewed. A total of 70% (N = 4781) were graded correctly. Of these, 64% (N = 3043) were grade 0. When the grade 0 scores were excluded, the accuracy of grading was reduced to 46% (N = 1738). Common reasons for incorrect grading included: unable to grade due to diet not specified, no ulceration and no pain was scored grade 1, no ulceration was scored as grade 2-4, oral intake was not taken into account, and pain without ulcer was scored 0. A total of 77% of the errors were repeated in the same patient on consecutive days. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest there is frequent inaccurate evaluation of oral mucositis and a need for nurse training to accurately assess oral mucositis.
PURPOSE: Oral mucositis is a common complication in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Accurate oral mucositis grading is essential for both clinical practice and oral mucositis research. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of daily oral mucositis grading by nurses in a tertiary hospital in Australia. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken to review the daily patient oral assessment record, including diet, pain, erythema, ulceration and the oral mucositis grade based on World Health Organization (WHO) oral mucositis grading scale. The accuracy of the grade was determined by the observations recorded, and reasons for inaccuracy were documented. Any repetition of the same error in the same patient was noted. RESULTS: In total, 6841 oral assessments in 373 patients, conducted between 2017 and 2020, were reviewed. A total of 70% (N = 4781) were graded correctly. Of these, 64% (N = 3043) were grade 0. When the grade 0 scores were excluded, the accuracy of grading was reduced to 46% (N = 1738). Common reasons for incorrect grading included: unable to grade due to diet not specified, no ulceration and no pain was scored grade 1, no ulceration was scored as grade 2-4, oral intake was not taken into account, and pain without ulcer was scored 0. A total of 77% of the errors were repeated in the same patient on consecutive days. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest there is frequent inaccurate evaluation of oral mucositis and a need for nurse training to accurately assess oral mucositis.
Authors: Deborah B McGuire; Douglas E Peterson; Susan Muller; Donna C Owen; Marina F Slemmons; Mark M Schubert Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Faith Gibson; Elizabeth M Auld; Gemma Bryan; Suzanne Coulson; Jean V Craig; Anne-Marie Glenny Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: P J Stiff; H Erder; W I Bensinger; C Emmanouilides; T Gentile; J Isitt; Z J Lu; R Spielberger Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Joel B Epstein; Jennifer L Beaumont; Clement K Gwede; Barbara Murphy; Adam S Garden; Ruby Meredith; Quynh-Thu Le; David Brizel; John Isitt; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S T Sonis; J P Eilers; J B Epstein; F G LeVeque; W H Liggett; M T Mulagha; D E Peterson; A H Rose; M M Schubert; F K Spijkervet; J P Wittes Journal: Cancer Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Barry Quinn; Carin M J Potting; Rebecca Stone; Nicole M A Blijlevens; Monica Fliedner; Anita Margulies; Lena Sharp Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-11-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Stephen T Sonis; Linda S Elting; Dorothy Keefe; Douglas E Peterson; Mark Schubert; Martin Hauer-Jensen; B Nebiyou Bekele; Judith Raber-Durlacher; J Peter Donnelly; Edward B Rubenstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer A Kushner; Herenia P Lawrence; Irit Shoval; Thomas L Kiss; Gerald M Devins; Linda Lee; Howard C Tenenbaum Journal: J Can Dent Assoc Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: Midori Nakagaki; Glen A Kennedy; Nicole C Gavin; Alexandra Clavarino; Karen Whitfield Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 3.359