Impact of targeted education on adverse drug reaction documentation in cancer centre sites

Abstract Allergic and infusion‐related reactions represent a significant portion of reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) at institutions providing cancer care. Insufficient documentation may result in preventable patient harm due to continued exposure to medications after known ADRs. An audit of patient health records at the study institution demonstrated notable variability in documentation practices, which served as the impetus to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a standardised ADR documentation workflow. Medication safety pharmacists partnered with nursing leadership to provide targeted education via two online video modules, a workflow tips sheet, and an educational infographic. The primary outcome was the frequency of allergy lists updated following the submission of a safety event report. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of standardised progress note writing, note routing to the responsible provider, and accurate reaction type differentiation. Allergy list updating significantly improved from 34.2% to 84.0% (p < 0.001), use of a standardised progress note improved from 47.4% to 64.2% (p = 0.008), and correct differentiation of reaction type improved from 57.7% to 76.4% (p = 0.02). Smaller community‐based cancer centre sites were significantly less likely to update allergy lists (7.5% versus 24.5%, p = 0.017) and were more likely to document incorrect reaction types (35.0% versus 14.3%, p = 0.022). Targeted education for a standardised documentation workflow increased adherence to ADR documentation, ensuring future treatment plans are updated for patients with a history of reaction and the EHR accurately reflects ADR history. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Kansas Medical Center Institutional Review Board (Reference no: STUDY00149411) and conforms with the US Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Education was incorporated as part of routine sessions and staff were provided with information on the project as part of the education; consent was not required from staff to attend the education and there was no formal assessment or evaluation of any staff that participated in this study.