Looker, Sherry

PURPOSE:This randomized, double-blind study sought to understand whether cancer clinical trial consent form verbosity detracts from patients' decision making on trial enrollment.METHODS:This trial tested mock consent forms of 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 words. The first two comprised the two experimental arms and the third the control arm. Phase II was conducted to identify the promising arm, which, in phase III, was compared with the control arm. Each consent form described the same trial. Eligible adult patients reported a cancer history and English literacy. The primary end point used a patient-reported Likert scale to assess the relationship between information in the consent form and trial decision making.RESULTS:In phase II, 93 patients were accrued and prompted the selection of the 2,000-word consent form for phase III. In phase III, 182 patients were recruited, resulting in 240 total evaluable patients to compare the 2,000-word versus the 6,000-word arm (control). For the primary end point, 103 (84%) and 107 (91%) patients in the 2,000- and 6,000-word arms, respectively, strongly agreed or agreed with the following: “The information in this consent form helped me make a decision about whether or not to enroll in the trial” (two-sided, P = .14). Median time to read each consent form was 8 and 12 minutes, respectively (two-sided, P < .0001). Among those assigned these consent forms, 84% and 73%, respectively (two-sided, P = .04) signed or expressed a willingness to sign.CONCLUSION:This study's primary end point was not met. However, secondary outcomes suggest a need to further study the efficiency and efficacy of shorter consent forms for cancer clinical trial enrollment.

e20605 Background: Intravenous (IV) fosaprepitant is a potent antiemetic, commonly used in patients receiving chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of IV fosaprepitant-associated infusion site adverse events (ISAEs) among a cohort of breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy at Mayo Rochester. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical record (EMR) data was performed for all patients who were initiated on AC chemotherapy from January 2011 to April 2012. Data collected from the EMR included baseline demographics, antiemetic regimen, documentation of ISAEs and type of IV access (peripheral vs. central). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation or percentages) were summarized overall and by type of IV access and initially administered antiemetic. Results: 148 patients were included, with a median age of 54 years (range 28-76). 98 patients initially received IV fosaprepitant; 44 oral aprepitant; 6 neither. 132 (89%) initially had peripheral IV access and 16 (11%) had central venous access. Overall, 33 patients (34%) experienced an IV fosaprepitant associated ISAE including: erythema (n=22), pain (n=26), swelling (n=12), infusion site hives (n=5), extravasation (n=4), deep venous thrombosis (n=3), superficial thrombosis (n=7), phlebitis/thrombophlebitis (n=5), venous discoloration (n=1), venous engorgement (n=1), venous hardening/induration (n=4) and local scarring (n=1). Only 1 patient (2%) experienced an oral aprepitant associated ISAE, which was infusion site pain. This patient had previously had a fosaprepitant associated ISAE at the same site. All experienced ISAEs occurred in patients with peripheral IV access. Conclusions: The incidence and severity of ISAEs associated with IV fosaprepitant administration among a group of patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy is significant and is appreciably higher than what has been noted in other reports. The higher incidence observed is likely related to the predominance of peripheral venous access used in the studied cohort.

Objective: A growing number of cancer antineoplastic agents can cause life-threatening acute infusion reactions. Because previous studies have not studied these reactions from the perspective of patients, this study was undertaken with that objective in mind. Methods: Patients who had an acute infusion reaction were interviewed based on the Leventhal model. Once saturation of content was achieved, interviews were transcribed and analyzed with qualitative methodology. Results: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Most were women (n = 15); the median age was 58 years, and paclitaxel was the most common inciting agent. Three themes emerged. First, these reactions are frightening; patients made remarks such as “I was just thinking oh my God, I am dying.” Second, prior education about these reactions seemed to mitigate this fear, “Basically everything the nurses told me potentially could happen, like happened. So, I was prepared.” Third, when health-care providers were prompt and attentive during the reaction, patients described less fear with future chemotherapy, “So no, I’m really not fearful about going in tomorrow because I know they’ll be there and they’ll be watching me.” Conclusion: These reactions evoke fear which can be mitigated with education prior to and with prompt responsiveness during the acute infusion reaction.

Introduction: Optimal scheduling and calendar management in an outpatient chemotherapy unit is a complex process that is driven by a need to focus on safety while accommodating a high degree of variability. Primary constraints are infusion times, staffing resources, chair availability, and unit hours. Methods: We undertook a process to analyze our existing management models across multiple practice settings in our health care system, then developed a model to optimize safety and efficiency. The model was tested in one of the community chemotherapy units. We assessed staffing violations as measured by nurse-to-patient ratios throughout the workday and at key points during treatment. Staffing violations were tracked before and after the implementation of the new model. Results: The new model reduced staffing violations by nearly 50% and required fewer chairs to treat the same number of patients for the selected clinic day. Actual implementation results indicated that the new model leveled the distribution of patients across the workday with an 18% reduction in maximum chair utilization and a 27% reduction in staffing violations. Subsequently, a positive impact on peak pharmacy workload reduced delays by as much as 35 minutes. Nursing staff satisfaction with the new model was positive. Conclusion: We conclude that the proposed optimization approach with regard to nursing resource assignment and workload balance throughout a day effectively improves patient service quality and staff satisfaction.

Without adequate safety measures, oral chemotherapy can lead to undetected dosing errors. The Mayo Clinic launched a project to ensure that all capecitabine and temozolomide prescriptions receive an independent double check.