IntroductionImproving the quality of self-management support (SMS) for treatment-related toxicities is a priority in cancer care. Successful implementation of SMS programmes depends on tailoring implementation strategies to organisational readiness factors and barriers/enablers, however, a systematic process for this is lacking. In this formative phase of our implementation-effectiveness trial, Self-Management and Activation to Reduce Treatment-Related Toxicities, we evaluated readiness based on constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and developed a process for mapping implementation strategies to local contexts.MethodsIn this convergent mixed-method study, surveys and interviews were used to assess readiness and barriers/enablers for SMS among stakeholders in 3 disease site groups at 3 regional cancer centres (RCCs) in Ontario, Canada. Median survey responses were classified as a barrier, enabler or neutral based on a priori cut-off values. Barriers/enablers at each centre were mapped to CFIR and then inputted into the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Strategy Matching Tool V.1.0 (CFIR-ERIC) to identify centre-specific implementation strategies. Qualitative data were separately analysed and themes mapped to CFIR constructs to provide a deeper understanding of barriers/enablers.ResultsSMS in most of the RCCs was not systematically delivered, yet most stakeholders (n=78; respondent rate=50%) valued SMS. For centre 1, 7 barriers/12 enablers were identified, 14 barriers/9 enablers for centre 2 and 11 barriers/5 enablers for centre 3. Of the total 46 strategies identified, 30 (65%) were common across centres as core implementation strategies and 5 tailored implementation recommendations were identified for centres 1 and 3, and 4 for centre 2.ConclusionsThe CFIR and CFIR-ERIC were valuable tools for tailoring SMS implementation to readiness and barriers/enablers, whereas NPT helped to clarify the clinical work of implementation. Our approach to tailoring of implementation strategies may have relevance for other studies.
The standardized elements from influenza antiviral trials can be considered and mirrored in future CAM studies. In this way, CAM therapies might be looked at on similar grounds as conventional medicines in terms of potential usefulness and benefit in the treatment of influenza.
This review presents a critical evaluation of methodological quality in controlled trials on homeopathic treatment of influenza. First, a short summary on the prevalence, quality, and most commonly cited shortcomings of homeopathic controlled trials in general is presented to support the more specific points within influenza trials alone. To this end, three areas of the homeopathic literature are examined; large meta-analyses looking at study quality and results across research areas, reviews on research within specific diagnostic categories, and the available reviews and primary studies on influenza treatment trials. The specific methodological designs of homeopathic influenza treatment trials are then compared, on a point by point basis, to pharmaceutical trials on influenza antiviral drugs. The goal of the evaluation is to highlight frequently cited problems in homeopathic trial design, suggest possible improvement for future studies, and make specific recommendations for homeopathic influenza trials based on a comparison to standard antiviral trials.
BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles.ResultsMost institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec.ConclusionsRealising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.
248 Background: Substantial work has been done to implement medication reconciliation (MedRec) in the inpatient setting to reduce medical errors and drug discrepancies. However, this work has not extended to the ambulatory cancer setting, where care spans multiple providers and responsibility remains unclear. We undertook an environmental scan to understand current MedRec practices in ambulatory cancer care across Canada. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with stakeholders from institutions across Canada during a 2-month period in 2019. Questionnaires were pre-circulated to participants to guide discussions. Questions probed participants on processes, policies, roles and responsibilities, definitions of target populations, information sources, and barriers and facilitators. Results: 21 of the 23 stakeholders contacted were interviewed, representing 9 of 10 Provinces. Most institutions had a process in place for collecting best possible medication history (BPMH; 81%); however, considerable variation in practice was noted and full MedRec was uncommon. Of those institutions with a process, BPMH was most often undertaken by a pharmacist or pharmacy tech (53%) using a comprehensive Provincial drug information system (65%) as a starting point, and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%). Few institutions (22%) routinely collected performance measures evaluating the process or outcomes. Lack of resources (physical, human and financial), high patient volumes, and access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers to routinely collecting BPMH. Understanding the value added, clinician buy-in, and patient education regarding the importance of bringing medication to the clinic were identified as facilitators. Leveraging patients to more actively participate in collection and maintenance of their own medication records was identified as an area for future work. Conclusions: While most centres were doing BPMH in some patients, MedRec was uncommon in the ambulatory cancer setting. Results indicate a lack of consensus regarding best practices for medication management in ambulatory cancer care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.