Background Oral anticancer medication ( OAM ) use is increasing in prevalence. Although OAM offers many advantages to patients, there is also a high risk of medication errors. Aim This study aimed to evaluate whether a pharmacist‐led OAM management clinic would improve patient understanding and adherence to OAM s and reduce medication errors. Methods Patients commencing OAM in the Oncology Outpatient Clinic between July 2015 and April 2016 were eligible for the study. OAM understanding was evaluated using a patient survey before and after initial pharmacist review, in the middle of the first cycle and prior to the second cycle. Education and symptom management advice were provided, as well as referral if required. Pharmacist interventions were documented, then independently assigned a significance rating by a medical officer and pharmacist. Local community pharmacists were approached to complete a survey investigating their practices and confidence dispensing OAM s. Results In all, 29 patients participated in the clinic. Survey results before and after initial pharmacist review showed a trend towards improved patient understanding, which was maintained mid‐cycle and before the second cycle. In addition, 51 pharmacist interventions were recorded: one of high, 32 of moderate and 18 of minimal clinical significance. Self‐reported adherence mid‐cycle and before the second cycle found that 1/18 and 1/9 patients, respectively, forgot to take a dose of their OAM and that 3/18 and 1/9 patients, respectively, reported not taking a dose for other reasons. The community pharmacist survey revealed that 40 and 50% were confident educating patients about OAM dosage regimens and side effects, respectively. Conclusion Although the significance of the pharmacists’ education and interventions cannot be determined because of the small sample size, a valuable service was implemented to meet patient needs and expectations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Byrne et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: