Although clinicians were critical of the quality of e-prescribing alerts, alerts may lead to clinically significant modifications in patient management not readily apparent based on "acceptance" rates.

BACKGROUND: Given the expanding use of oral chemotherapies, the authors set out to examine errors in the prescribing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring of these drugs. METHODS: Reports were collected of oral chemotherapy-associated medication errors from a medical literature and Internet search and review of reports to the Medication Errors Reporting Program and MEDMARX. The authors solicited incident reports from 14 comprehensive cancer centers, and also collected incident reports, pharmacy interventions, and prompted clinician reports from their own center. They classified the type of incident, severity, stage in the medication use process, and type of medication error. They examined the yield of the various reporting methods to identify oral chemotherapy-related medication errors. RESULTS: The authors identified 99 adverse drug events, 322 near misses, and 87 medical errors with low risk of harm. Of the 99 adverse drug events, 20 were serious or life-threatening, 52 were significant, and 25 were minor. The most common medication errors involved wrong dose (38.8%), wrong drug (13.6%), wrong number of days supplied (11.0%), and missed dose (10.0%). The majority of errors resulted in a near miss; however, 39.3% of reports involving the wrong number of days supplied resulted in adverse drug events. Incidents derived from the literature search and hospital incident reporting system included a larger percentage of adverse drug events (73.1% and 58.8%, respectively) compared with other sources. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring oral chemotherapy safety requires improvements in the way these drugs are ordered, dispensed, administered, and monitored. Cancer 2010;116:2455-64.

Although many patients prefer orally administered cancer therapy (including oral chemotherapy) because of its convenience, the shift from hospital to home-based administration creates concerns. This article explores the perceptions and experiences of oral chemotherapy users and their caregivers to assess vulnerabilities and improvement opportunities at each stage of the medication process: choosing oral chemotherapy, prescribing, dispensing, administering, and monitoring. The authors recruited 15 current and former oral chemotherapy users, as well as caregivers who administered the medications to children, to participate in one of two focus group sessions at a comprehensive cancer center. Participants largely were satisfied with oral cancer therapy but raised concerns regarding their lack of preparedness for side effects and their unfamiliarity with the possible techniques to mitigate drug toxicity. Participants also described difficulties obtaining medications through retail pharmacies. Parents of pediatric patients with cancer indicated concerns regarding their children's emotional health and correct medication administration. Participants believed that the initial prescribing encounter should have included more education, and they also wanted more frequent follow-up by healthcare practitioners. As oral cancer therapy is used more widely, oncology healthcare providers will need to create robust mechanisms to support their safe use.

Purpose: Oral chemotherapies represent an emerging risk area in ambulatory oncology practice. To examine the hazards associated with five oral chemotherapies, we performed a proactive risk assessment. Methods:We convened interdisciplinary teams and conducted failure mode and effects analyses (FMEAs) for five oral chemotherapy agents: capecitabine, imatinib, temozolomide, 6-mercaptopurine, and an investigational agent. This involved the creation of process maps for each medication, identification of failure modes, selection of high-risk failure modes, and development of recommendations to mitigate these risks. We analyzed the number of steps and types of failure modes and compared this information across the study drugs.Results: Key vulnerabilities include patient education about drug handling and adverse effects, prescription writing, patient self-administration and medication adherence, and failure to monitor and manage toxicities. Many of these failure modes were common across the five oral chemotherapies, suggesting the presence of common targets for improvement. Streamlining the FMEA itself may promote the dissemination of this method. Conclusion:Each stage of the medication process poses risks to the safe use of oral chemotherapies. FMEAs may identify opportunities to improve medication safety and reduce the risk of patient harm.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Rectal bleeding is associated with colorectal cancer. We characterized the evaluation of patients aged 40 years and older with rectal bleeding and identified characteristics associated with inadequate evaluation. METHODS We conducted a retrospective review of records of outpatient visits that contained reports of rectal bleeding for patients aged 40 years and older (N = 480). We studied whether patient characteristics affected whether or not they received a colonoscopy examination within 90 days of presentation with rectal bleeding. Patient characteristics included demographics; family history of colon cancer and polyps; and histories of screening colonoscopies, physical examinations, referrals to specialists at the index visit, and communication of laboratory results. Data were collected from medical records, and patient income levels were estimated based on Zip codes. RESULTS Nearly half of the patients presenting with rectal bleeding received colonoscopies (48.1%); 81.7% received the procedure within 90 days. A history of a colonoscopy examination was more likely to be reported in white patients compared with Hispanic or Asian patients (P = .012 and P = .006, respectively), and in high-income compared with low-income patients (P = .022). A family history was more likely to be documented among patients with private insurance than those with Medicaid or Medicare (P = .004). A rectal examination was performed more often for patients who were white or Asian, male, and with high or middle incomes, compared with those who were black, Hispanic, female, or with low incomes (P = .027). White patients were more likely to have their laboratory results communicated to them than black patients (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS Sex, race, ethnicity, patient income, and insurance status were associated with disparities in evaluation of rectal bleeding. There is a need to standardize the evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding.