Administration of Oral Chemotherapy: Results From Three Rounds of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Zerillo, Jessica A.; Pham, Trang; Kadlubek, Pamela; Severson, Jane Alcyne; Mackler, Emily; Jacobson, Joseph O.; Blayney, Douglas W.

doi:10.1200/jop.2014.001842

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A review of practice-level systems indicated opportunities for quality improvement efforts for the safe management of chemotherapy, defining the treatment gap targeted here. 22…”

Section: Chemotherapy Education and Informed Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality improvement in neurology: Neuro-Oncology Quality Measurement Set

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 78,000 new central nervous system (CNS) tumors are diagnosed each year in the United States, nearly one-third of which are primary malignant brain tumors, 1 and the US prevalence of primary brain tumors is approximately 688,000. 2 While primary CNS neoplasms represent only 1.4% of new cancer diagnoses, approximately 2.7% of cancer deaths are related to CNS neoplasms, 3 and it is estimated that 16,947 deaths will result from primary CNS tumors in 2017. 1 Population-based studies have shown that socioeconomic disparities are present within the neuro-oncology community, 4-7 highlighting the need for a unified system of quality metrics in this growing field. Toward this end, several authors have published work on quality-based practice and on the inclusion of patient reported outcomes in brain tumor care. 8-12 During the launch of AAN's Axon Registry ® , the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) requested that subspecialty societies identify gaps in subspecialty care amenable to clinical quality measure development, and work to identify ways the AAN could help meet those needs. Thereafter, the AAN and the Society for Neuro-oncology (SNO) identified a small work group to determine neuro-oncological gaps in care, to evaluate supporting evidence for clinical practice standards, and to develop feasible clinical quality measures to address these areas. The hope is that these measures will help drive clinical practice improvement and better patient outcomes.

show abstract

“…A review of practice-level systems indicated opportunities for quality improvement efforts for the safe management of chemotherapy, defining the treatment gap targeted here. 22…”

Section: Chemotherapy Education and Informed Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality improvement in neurology: Neuro-Oncology Quality Measurement Set

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A review of practice-level systems indicated opportunities for quality improvement efforts for the safe management of chemotherapy, defining the treatment gap targeted here. 22 Perioperative MRI For high-grade gliomas, extent of resection is strongly correlated with overall survival. 23,24 Furthermore, many clinical trials include measures of residual disease as a criterion for inclusion.…”

Section: Chemotherapy Education and Informed Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality improvement in neurology

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 78,000 new CNS tumors are diagnosed each year in the United States, nearly one-third of which are primary malignant brain tumors, 1 and the US prevalence of primary brain tumors is approximately 688,000. 2 While primary CNS neoplasms represent only 1.4% of new cancer diagnoses, approximately 2.7% of cancer deaths are related to CNS neoplasms, 3 and it is estimated that 16,947 deaths will result from primary CNS tumors in 2017. 1 Population-based studies have shown that socioeconomic disparities are present within the neuro-oncology community, 4-7 highlighting the need for a unified system of quality metrics in this growing field. Toward this end, several authors have published work on quality-based practice and on the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in brain tumor care. 8-12 During the launch of American Academy of Neurology (AAN)'s Axon Registry ® , the AAN requested that subspecialty societies identify gaps in subspecialty care amenable to clinical quality measure development, and work to identify ways the AAN could help meet those needs. Thereafter, the AAN and the Society for Neuro-oncology (SNO) identified a small work group to determine neuro-oncologic gaps in care, to evaluate supporting evidence for clinical practice standards, and to develop feasible clinical quality measures to address these areas. The hope is that these measures will help drive clinical practice improvement and better patient outcomes. Opportunities for improvement Following a thorough literature search, the work group identified 5 areas in need of quality improvement. The specific topics and rationale for each are described below. Multidisciplinary care plan development Multidisciplinary tumor board discussions for care plan determination have been associated with improved quality and coordination of care in various cancers, and are a well-established quality indicator in oncology care, both domestically and internationally. 8,13-15 Indeed, establishment of a regularly meeting tumor board with input from neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, radiation oncology, neuroradiology, and neuropathology has been cited as a necessary component for establishing a brain tumor center. 16 One study of brain tumor board discussions revealed that 91% of 1,516 clinical recommendations were implemented, and that nearly half of those were recommendations for conservative management, demonstrating the utility of multidisciplinary input in neuro-oncology cases and in optimizing patient-centered outcomes. 15 Another study showed that patients treated by physicians who attend weekly tumor boards are significantly more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials for various cancers, and

show abstract

“…Consequently there are concerns regarding adherence and management of toxicities or adverse effects (Greer et al, 2016;Hammond et al, 2012;NCCP, 2018;Paolella et al, 2018;Wood, 2012). Evidence suggests that current health care practices globally do not ensure safe administration or patient adherence (Griffiths & Pasco, 2014;LeFebvre & Felice, 2016;Le Saux et al, 2018;Redelico et al, 2018;Zerillo et al, 2015). Following a review of OAM practices in North America, Zerillo et al (2015) identified unmet patient needs of 43-49% for patient education and 19-25% for adherence/toxicity monitoring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence suggests that current health care practices globally do not ensure safe administration or patient adherence (Griffiths & Pasco, 2014;LeFebvre & Felice, 2016;Le Saux et al, 2018;Redelico et al, 2018;Zerillo et al, 2015). Following a review of OAM practices in North America, Zerillo et al (2015) identified unmet patient needs of 43-49% for patient education and 19-25% for adherence/toxicity monitoring. Individuals prescribed OAMs often experience a high burden of cancer related symptoms which corresponds to reduced adherence and quality of life (Jacobs et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current management of adults receiving oral anti-cancer medications: A scoping review protocol

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oncology has been undergoing a profound transition in the last ten years or more with the increase in oral anti-cancer medications. Approximately 25% of all anti-cancer medication is now designed for oral use and this is likely to increase prospectively. These treatments are convenient for patients and are often preferred by them, yet there are similar safely and toxicity concerns as there are to intravenous treatment. Oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs) have the potential to alleviate capacity issues in cancer treating units as patients receive their treatment at home, however there remains a requirement for safe and efficient assessment and care. Consequently, the management of patients on oral anti-cancer is of paramount importance but as to the location of such patient assessment and monitoring and by which health care professional is subject to ongoing debate. This paper presents a protocol for a scoping review which aims to systematically and comprehensively map the available literature on the current management of adults receiving oral anti-cancer medications. The scoping review will follow the published guidance to direct the various steps involved. The report will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework to ensure methodological and reporting quality. The review will be performed by two reviewers and checked by a third reviewer and will be iterative in the process. This scoping review will provide a narrative synthesis and map the extent of available literature on the management of individuals receiving oral anti-cancer medication. This work is an appropriate initial stage in presenting the literature to inform the subsequent steps in a multi-phased research study which aims to establish and analyse the safety and efficacy of an integrated care model for the management of patients receiving OAM in the community by an advanced nurse.

show abstract

Administration of Oral Chemotherapy: Results From Three Rounds of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Cited by 22 publications

References 36 publications

Quality improvement in neurology: Neuro-Oncology Quality Measurement Set

Quality improvement in neurology: Neuro-Oncology Quality Measurement Set

Quality improvement in neurology

Current management of adults receiving oral anti-cancer medications: A scoping review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About