Introduction Patients admitted for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) are discharged with multiple new medications. At our institution, a new patient Self Medication Program (SMP) was implemented on the allo-HSCT units. An SMP allows patients to practice self-administration of medications in a controlled environment before discharge. We assessed the impact of the SMP on patient medication knowledge, self-efficacy, adherence, and safety. Patient and staff satisfaction with the SMP was also explored. Methods Participants in the SMP group received medication counseling by a pharmacist and self-managed their medications with nursing supervision until discharge. Participants in the pre-SMP group received medication counseling by a pharmacist at discharge. All participants completed a Medication Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Questionnaire before discharge and at follow-up. Safety endpoints were assessed for SMP participants. Results Twenty-six patients in the pre-SMP group and 25 patients in the SMP group completed both questionnaires. Median knowledge scores in the pre-SMP group versus the SMP group were 8.5/10 versus 10/10 at discharge ( p = 0.0023) and 9/10 versus 10/10 at follow-up ( p = 0.047). Median self-efficacy scores were 38/39 in the pre-SMP group versus 39/39 in the SMP group at both discharge and follow-up ( pdischarge = 0.11, pfollow-up = 0.10). The SMP was associated with at least 1 medication event in 7 participants, but no medication incidents. Patient and staff surveys showed a positive perceived value of the SMP. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that the SMP is associated with durable, improved medication knowledge, a trend towards improved self-efficacy, and largely positive perceptions among both staff and patient participants.

Subcutaneous injection is now commonly used as a standard for bortezomib administration. The bortezomib (Velcade(®)) product monograph recommends that intravenous injections be prepared at a concentration of 1 mg/mL, while subcutaneous injections may be prepared at a concentration of 2.5 mg/mL. Many institutions and subcutaneous administration guidelines use 2 mL as the maximum volume for subcutaneous injection. Using 2 mL as the maximum volume for injection would mean that many patients receiving bortezomib will receive two injections during each visit with common dosing parameters. In this prospective study evaluating a change to subcutaneous administration, bortezomib 1 mg/mL was administered subcutaneously at a higher maximum of 3 mL per injection site. For 57 individual patients, 339 doses were administered. Skin reactions were noted in 42% with all reactions being Grade 1 or 2. Patients tolerated subcutaneous injections well and only four patients were switched back to intravenous route. This is the first time that subcutaneous bortezomib of a volume up to a maximum of 3 mL (bortezomib 3 mg) per injection site has been reported. This higher single dose is well tolerated with limited skin reactions, no significant hypotension and facilitates ease of administration with only 5 patients needing two injections per visit. If the maximum volume for injection was kept at 2 mL, a total of 46 patients would have received two injections per visit.

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.

246 Background: Prior to COVID we undertook a QI project with the aim improving the documentation of a best possible medication history (BPMH) or medication reconciliation (MedRec) for patients initiating systemic therapy (ST) in ambulatory oncology, where care spans multiple providers and patients may be at increased risk of adverse drug events. While initial improvements were realized (16.7% and 3.9% increases for BPMH and MedRec, respectively), completion rates returned to baseline following the start of the COVID pandemic. Methods: Guided by the four-phase Quality Implementation Framework we sought to recover implementation of MedRec. We initially undertook a purposeful re-examination of the MedRec process (Phase 1) to identify barriers to conducting MedRec during COVID. This guided the tailored selection of Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies utilized during the successive phase of the project. During each phase the proportion of patients with documented BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating ST out of those eligible was calculated. Results: Major barriers to conducting MedRec during COVID included reduced resources (time, human resources and physical resources), loss of dedicated staff, and change in workflow/ clinical models brought on by the introduction of virtual care. This informed our strategy to improve capacity to conduct MedRec (Phase 2) through the development and distribution of educational materials, revisions of professional roles, and creation of a new dedicated clinical team consisting of existing modified duty nurses to conduct MedRec. To support ongoing implementation (Phase 3), additional implementation strategies included the staged implementation scale-up, conduct of educational meetings/ outreach visits, facilitation, and provision of clinical supervision. The impact of each phase of implementation on BPMH and MedRec completion rates is summarized in Table. Conclusions: Recovery of a quality improvement intervention during COVID was realized through the utilization of a structured, implementation process model approach to identify and address barriers to implementation. Future work will focus on improvement of MedRec completion rates by clinicians, and on embedding processes into practice (Phase 4) to support sustainability of the intervention.[Table: see text]

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.