Ashley McGee, PharmD, BCOP

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic ordering is high in both complexity and risk for medication errors. Joint Commission and institutional policy recommends computerized prescriber order entry and verification by a pharmacist as a best practice for patient safety. The use of ordering templates minimizes the risk of errors and ensures appropriate supportive care is being provided. The Veterans Affairs electronic medical record does not feature an antineoplastic ordering component; historically, templates have been on paper. The oncology, pharmacy, and clinical informatics departments in our health system formed a team to create electronic antineoplastic ordering templates.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates on pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions.

METHODS: Ordering templates, which included standard dosing and supportive care medications, were developed and activated for prescribers in phases over the course of two years. Immunotherapy and oral oncolytic templates were activated initially, followed by full implementation of the majority of intravenous (IV) ordering templates. Percent of electronic antineoplastic orders, pharmacy processing time, time to first drug delivery, and number of pharmacist encounters and interventions were documented daily for four weeks after initial implementation and for ten weeks after full implementation. Means were compared using unpaired t tests.

RESULTS: After initial implementation, the percentage of electronic antineoplastic orders increased from 0% to 100% for oral antineoplastics and from 0% to 39% for IV orders. After full implementation, IV orders increased to 69% in weeks 1-5 and 96% in weeks 6-10. Mean pharmacy processing time for supportive care medications was 35 minutes initially. This increased briefly after full implementation (weeks 1-5), then decreased to 17 minutes in weeks 6-10 (p<0.01). Delivery of the first medication to the infusion center decreased by 31 minutes at week ten (<0.01). Mean daily pharmacist encounters increased by 28%(<0.01) and documented interventions increased by 22% (<0.01).

IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates increased provider order entry, pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions. These outcomes may translate to improved patient safety and patient access to quality care. Templates developed can serve as a model for other health systems to implement electronic antineoplastic ordering.

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic ordering is high in both complexity and risk for medication errors. Joint Commission and institutional policy recommends computerized prescriber order entry and verification by a pharmacist as a best practice for patient safety. The use of ordering templates minimizes the risk of errors and ensures appropriate supportive care is being provided. The Veterans Affairs electronic medical record does not feature an antineoplastic ordering component; historically, templates have been on paper. The oncology, pharmacy, and clinical informatics departments in our health system formed a team to create electronic antineoplastic ordering templates.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates on pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions.

METHODS: Ordering templates, which included standard dosing and supportive care medications, were developed and activated for prescribers in phases over the course of two years. Immunotherapy and oral oncolytic templates were activated initially, followed by full implementation of the majority of intravenous (IV) ordering templates. Percent of electronic antineoplastic orders, pharmacy processing time, time to first drug delivery, and number of pharmacist encounters and interventions were documented daily for four weeks after initial implementation and for ten weeks after full implementation. Means were compared using unpaired t tests.

RESULTS: After initial implementation, the percentage of electronic antineoplastic orders increased from 0% to 100% for oral antineoplastics and from 0% to 39% for IV orders. After full implementation, IV orders increased to 69% in weeks 1-5 and 96% in weeks 6-10. Mean pharmacy processing time for supportive care medications was 35 minutes initially. This increased briefly after full implementation (weeks 1-5), then decreased to 17 minutes in weeks 6-10 (p<0.01). Delivery of the first medication to the infusion center decreased by 31 minutes at week ten (<0.01). Mean daily pharmacist encounters increased by 28%(<0.01) and documented interventions increased by 22% (<0.01).

IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates increased provider order entry, pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions. These outcomes may translate to improved patient safety and patient access to quality care. Templates developed can serve as a model for other health systems to implement electronic antineoplastic ordering.

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic ordering is high in both complexity and risk for medication errors. Joint Commission and institutional policy recommends computerized prescriber order entry and verification by a pharmacist as a best practice for patient safety. The use of ordering templates minimizes the risk of errors and ensures appropriate supportive care is being provided. The Veterans Affairs electronic medical record does not feature an antineoplastic ordering component; historically, templates have been on paper. The oncology, pharmacy, and clinical informatics departments in our health system formed a team to create electronic antineoplastic ordering templates.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates on pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions.

METHODS: Ordering templates, which included standard dosing and supportive care medications, were developed and activated for prescribers in phases over the course of two years. Immunotherapy and oral oncolytic templates were activated initially, followed by full implementation of the majority of intravenous (IV) ordering templates. Percent of electronic antineoplastic orders, pharmacy processing time, time to first drug delivery, and number of pharmacist encounters and interventions were documented daily for four weeks after initial implementation and for ten weeks after full implementation. Means were compared using unpaired t tests.

RESULTS: After initial implementation, the percentage of electronic antineoplastic orders increased from 0% to 100% for oral antineoplastics and from 0% to 39% for IV orders. After full implementation, IV orders increased to 69% in weeks 1-5 and 96% in weeks 6-10. Mean pharmacy processing time for supportive care medications was 35 minutes initially. This increased briefly after full implementation (weeks 1-5), then decreased to 17 minutes in weeks 6-10 (p<0.01). Delivery of the first medication to the infusion center decreased by 31 minutes at week ten (<0.01). Mean daily pharmacist encounters increased by 28%(<0.01) and documented interventions increased by 22% (<0.01).

IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates increased provider order entry, pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions. These outcomes may translate to improved patient safety and patient access to quality care. Templates developed can serve as a model for other health systems to implement electronic antineoplastic ordering.