Which hematology/oncology patients are high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review? A three-round Delphi survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Introduction Prioritization and acuity tools have been leveraged to facilitate targeted and efficient clinical pharmacist interventions. However, there is a lack of established pharmacy-specific acuity factors in the ambulatory hematology/oncology setting. Therefore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Pharmacy Directors Forum conducted a survey to establish consensus on acuity factors associated with hematology/oncology patients that are high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review. Methods A three-round electronic Delphi survey was conducted. During the first round, respondents were asked an open-ended question to suggest acuity factors based on their expert opinion. Respondents were then asked in the second round to agree or disagree with the compiled acuity factors, in which those with ≥75% agreement were included in the third round. The final consensus was defined as a mean score ≥3.33 on a modified 4-point Likert scale (4 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) during the third round. Results A total of 124 hematology/oncology clinical pharmacists completed the first round of the Delphi survey (invitation response rate, 36.7%), of which 103 completed the second round (response rate, 83.1%) and 84 the third round (response rate, 67.7%). A final consensus was achieved for 18 acuity factors. Acuity factors were identified in the following themes: antineoplastic regimen characteristics, drug interactions, organ dysfunction, pharmacogenomics, recent discharge, laboratory parameters, and treatment-related toxicities. Conclusions This Delphi panel of 124 clinical pharmacists achieved consensus on 18 acuity factors that would identify a hematology/oncology patient as a high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review. The research team envisions incorporating these acuity factors into a pharmacy-specific electronic scoring tool.
Objectives: Music intervention has been shown to reduce anxiety and sedative exposure among mechanically ventilated patients. Whether music intervention reduces ICU costs is not known. The aim of this study was to examine ICU costs for patients receiving a patient-directed music intervention compared with patients who received usual ICU care. Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis from the hospital perspective was conducted to determine if patient-directed music intervention was cost-effective in improving patient-reported anxiety. Cost savings were also evaluated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses determined the influence of input variation on the cost-effectiveness. Setting: Midwestern ICUs. Patients: Adult ICU patients from a parent clinical trial receiving mechanical ventilatory support. Interventions: Patients receiving the experimental patient-directed music intervention received a MP3 player, noise-canceling headphones, and music tailored to individual preferences by a music therapist. Measurements and Main Results: The base case cost-effectiveness analysis estimated patient-directed music intervention reduced anxiety by 19 points on the Visual Analogue Scale-Anxiety with a reduction in cost of $2,322/patient compared with usual ICU care, resulting in patient-directed music dominance. The probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis found that average patient-directed music intervention costs were $2,155 less than usual ICU care and projected that cost saving is achieved in 70% of 1,000 iterations. Based on break-even analyses, cost saving is achieved if the per-patient cost of patient-directed music intervention remains below $2,651, a value eight times the base case of $329. Conclusions: Patient-directed music intervention is cost-effective for reducing anxiety in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.