Pharmaceutical care program for onco-hematologic outpatients: safety, efficiency and patient satisfaction

Abstract

The program has been implemented and evaluated successfully. It ensures a high quality and standard of pharmaceutical care with high patient satisfaction rate and the key points to prioritize for improvement in terms of safety (interactions and administration errors) and efficiency (adherence and permanence) of oral antineoplastic agents.

The effects of pharmacist interventions on adult outpatients with cancer: A systematic review

“…After reviewing the titles and abstracts, 617 records were excluded because they did not include a study of pharmacist interventions in adult patients with cancer; did not assess the impact of interventions; or included non‐ambulatory patients. The remaining 40 records were selected for full‐text examination, of which 11 met all the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review . The excluded studies and the reasons for their exclusion are detailed in Appendix 2.…”

“…The assessment of the key components of pharmacist interventions showed that the studies were conducted at different outpatient settings, such as clinics, university hospitals and cancer centres or institutes. The main communication method with patients was face‐to‐face contact (72.7%) . The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 45 months, with most studies (n=5) reporting a follow‐up time of less than 12 months.…”

“…Pharmacists have an important role in identifying drug‐related problems and have taken actions to address them, including providing drug information or patient counselling (81.8%); adjusting support drugs based on protocols previously established in collaboration with the healthcare team (18.2%); suggesting the physician on changes in medication (9.1%); providing drug information to the healthcare team (9.1%); taking laboratory test orders (9.1%); and referring to other healthcare team members, such as psychologists (9.1%) . Most support resources provided by the pharmacists were educational material (concerning oral antineoplastic drugs and support drugs, adverse events and potential drug‐drug interactions) . One study reported blood pressure monitoring for renal cancer patients where patients were advised to note blood pressure values in a disease self‐management diary.…”

“…Only six studies included a control group that received usual care (eg, prescription analysis or supply of medicines). The most commonly measured outcomes were rates of nausea and vomiting control (n=4) and patient satisfaction (n=3), followed by quality of life (n=2), adverse drug reaction or adverse event frequency (n=2), drug‐related problem frequency (n=1) and anti‐emesis drug costs (n=1) . Medication adherence (n=3), knowledge‐attitude‐practice for chemotherapy (n=1), awareness and knowledge regarding blood pressure management (n=1) and adherence to laboratory parameter monitoring (n=1) were measured as process indicators.…”

Improving pharmacotherapy outcomes in patients with hepatitis C virus infection treated with direct-acting antivirals: The GRUviC project

“…Lastly, a study including 249 oncology patients who were assisted through a CPCP with three clinical interviews over a 6‐month period demonstrated an increase in the percentage of patients with an adherence rate >90% in the intervention group compared with the control group (from 60.5% to 80.8%) ( P <.001). This programme reordered 275 medication errors and 362 pharmacist interventions, mainly to reinforce patient education …”