Oncology treatment errors: Emerging data shed light on risk factors, prevention
AT THE QUALITY CARE SYMPOSIUM
Nearly all outpatient intravenous systemic treatment visits in Ontario are supported by a Systemic Treatment Computerized Prescriber Order Entry (ST-CPOE) system, she noted. Such systems can reduce error rates but are not foolproof.
She and her colleagues asked all Ontario treatment centers to review their active chemotherapy regimens. Data were analyzed to determine whether the regimens were built as intended with respect to their component drugs and doses, leading to identification of any unintentional discrepancies with the original regimen.
A total of 33 centers performed the review, and the median number of regimens reviewed was 375 per center, Ms. Crespo reported.
Unintentional discrepancies in regimens were found at 27% of centers. The total number reported was 369 discrepancies, with a range from 2 to 198 per center.
All of the nine centers where discrepancies were found participated in the provincial ST-CPOE system, and most had for at least 20 years. Furthermore, eight of them used a team of at least two pharmacists and one oncologist to build their regimens. “So you can see that discrepancies occurred despite a fairly rigorous regimen-build process and many years of experience with the system,” she said.
Of the 369 total discrepancies, 41% were related to alignment with the Systemic Treatment Quality-Based Program regimen, and 32% were regimens flagged to be inactivated because of outdated information, new standards, or lack of use.
A detailed analysis of the remaining 27%, or 101 unintentional discrepancies, showed that the majority were due to missing information (35.6%) or missing drugs (13.9%), incorrect doses (10.9%), and incorrect or missing schedules (10.9%). Potential to cause harm was mild for 55%, moderate for 28%, and none for 17%.
“Corrective action has been taken to address the discrepancies identified,” said Ms. Crespo.
Only 6% of the 33 centers reported having an established regimen review and maintenance process in place before the study, but all now have such a process. In addition, some centers that did not find any regimen discrepancies nonetheless reported adding quality improvement activities, such as changes in the ways regimens were built and documented, and revising regimen names to facilitate accurate selection.
In discussing the study, Dr. Jacobson noted the low proportion of centers having an established process at baseline to ensure appropriate regimen maintenance and updates. “You might want to think to yourselves, the medical oncologists in the group, whether your center has such a process in place,” he proposed.
It is not yet known whether the project has met its goal of improving the quality and accuracy of oncology regimens in Ontario, he maintained. “We are going to have to invite [Ms. Crespo] back in a year or two to see whether that turns out to be true.” On the other hand, “clearly what they have achieved was the ability to measure the variance between what was intended and what was actually built.”
Chief among the reasons for success, again, “was a strong and effective leadership and organizational structure, not at the department level or hospital level, but across the entire province through Cancer Care Ontario,” Dr. Jacobson said. “It’s clear that they have a focus on quality and patient safety, and this measurement program that they have put in place turned out to be useful.”
Dr. Judy, Dr. Weiss, and Ms. Crespo disclosed that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
