Dose Rounding Research Articles

A multifaceted approach in leveraging electronic health record tools for safe inpatient use of concentrated U-500 insulin.

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices classifies subcutaneous insulin as a high-risk medication. Concentrated U-500 insulin carries additional risks in comparison to conventional U-100 insulin, as the 5-fold more concentrated nature of this product, limitations to insulin pen dosing, and various devices for dose measurement may lead to miscommunication of patient-reported doses, resulting in downstream errors in ordering, verification, or administration. We describe a multifaceted approach to leveraging technical tools within the electronic health record (EHR) for U-500 insulin use. At Cleveland Clinic, the U-500 insulin use process evolved in a number of phases using EHR tools. Phase 1 included new clinical decision support and documentation tools during order entry, including a customized alert that fired during order entry recommending that the prescriber order a consult with endocrinology and requiring the prescriber to provide the patient's home insulin measuring device and the source of the patient's reported home dose. In order verification, a customized alert fired directing the pharmacist to contact the patient or patient's nurse and validate the information provided by the prescriber. Phase 2 involved transitioning dispensing of patient-specific doses from tuberculin syringes to U-500 insulin syringes. Phase 3 transitioned to use of U-500 insulin pens and included automatic dose rounding of ordered doses down to the nearest 5 units, and an additional customized pharmacist alert intended for cost conservation was added to fire if the patient had a recent administration of U-500 insulin documented, directing the pharmacist to determine whether the nurse needed a new pen dispensed. Cleveland Clinic successfully implemented customized tools and processes within the EHR pertaining to the prescribing, verification, dispensing, and administration of U-500 insulin.

Impact of a central review oncology clinical pharmacist in a community oncology practice.

68 Background: The impact and role of a clinical pharmacist in a community oncology setting is not well-described in the literature. The US Oncology Network recently implemented a central clinical pharmacist review program (ClinReview) to offer oncology remote clinical pharmacist services to practices. Methods: An oncology-trained clinical pharmacist electronically reviewed recently placed or modified chemotherapy regimen orders within a community oncology practice. The ClinReview pharmacist identified opportunities to modify ordered therapy based on clinical components, waste reduction, or financial stewardship. Recommendations were discussed with the treating oncologist at the practice or modified if permitted by approved practice policy. The pharmacist was appointed at 0.5 full-time equivalents (FTE). Financial and workload metrics were tracked to monitor the impact of the pharmacist work. Results: In 10 weeks, 388 reviews were documented and 191 (49.2%) required a modification by the pharmacist. Recommended modifications included dose rounding (n=90, 47%), a clinical change (n=72, 38%), or product substitution (n=29, 15%). The most common clinical changes included modifications to supportive care (n=32, 44%), recommendations for additional monitoring (n=19, 26%), or modifications to anti-cancer medication dose or frequency (n=18, 25%). The financial impact of the pharmacist resulted in margin improvements totaling $106,043 and a $462,305 reduction in the total cost of care in medication expenses (Table). The expense of the pharmacist during this period was $18,095. The return on investment for the pharmacist compared to margin improvement was 590%. Conclusions: An oncology clinical pharmacist is a cost-effective and valuable member of the care team in community oncology practice. The pharmacist identified opportunities to improve medication safety, regimen optimization, and demonstrated significant financial impact for the practice, payers, and patients.[Table: see text]

Implementation of a Standardized Approach to Improve the Pediatric Discharge Medication Process.

The pediatric inpatient discharge medication process is complicated, and caregivers have difficulty managing instructions. Authors of few studies evaluate systematic processes for ensuring quality in these care transitions. We aimed to improve caregiver medication management and understanding of discharge medications by standardizing the discharge medication process. An interprofessional team at an urban, tertiary care children's hospital trialed interventions to improve caregiver medication management and understanding. These included mnemonics to aid in complete medication counseling, electronic medical record enhancements to standardize medication documentation and simplify dose rounding, and housestaff education. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of discharge medication-related failures in each 4-week period. Failure was defined as an incorrect response on ≥1 survey questions. Statistical process control was used to analyze improvement over time. Process measures related to medication documentation and dose rounding were compared by using the χ2 test and process control. Special cause variation occurred in the mean discharge medication-related failure rate, which decreased from 70.1% to 36.1% and was sustained. There were significantly more complete after-visit summaries (21.0% vs 85.1%; P < .001) and more patients with simplified dosing (75.2% vs 95.6%; P < .001) in the intervention period. Special cause variation also occurred for these measures. A systematic approach to standardizing the discharge medication process led to improved caregiver medication management and understanding after pediatric inpatient discharge. These changes could be adapted by other hospitals to enhance the quality of this care transition.

Inactivated Four-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Dosing Practices for Reversal of Warfarin-Related Intracranial Hemorrhage

Inactivated four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (I4F-PCC, Kcentra®) has become an important agent for the urgent or emergent reversal of bleeding associated with vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. There is recognized inter-institutional variability with the use of I4F-PCC, especially as it relates to dosing practices. We sought to characterize variations in I4F-PCC dosing practices and their impact on patient outcomes and describe overall real-world clinical practice surrounding I4F-PCC utilization in the context of the management of warfarin-related intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). This is a multicenter retrospective pragmatic registry study of adult patients admitted at a participating study site between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, who received I4F-PCC for reversal of warfarin-related ICH. Practices around warfarin-related ICH reversal in context of I4F-PCC utilization are described, including repeat I4F-PCC dosing, adjunctive reversal agents, and dose rounding policies (i.e., rounding doses to nearest vial size vs preparing exact/unrounded doses). All research was approved by local human investigation committees at each institution. Seventeen institutions contributed data on 528 patients to this registry. These institutions were primarily urban centers (74%), located in the southeast USA (47%), with Level 1 Trauma designation (79%), and with Comprehensive Stroke Center designation (74%). Most patients included in the study had sustained a non-traumatic ICH (68%), had a median admission GCS of 14 (IQR 7-15), and were receiving warfarin for atrial fibrillation (57.4%). There was substantial time latency between baseline INR and I4F-PCC (median 2.4h, IQR 1.4-4.5h). Most patients received adjunctive reversal agents, including vitamin K (89.5%) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (31.9%). A smaller proportion (6.0%) of patients received repeat I4F-PCC dosing. The median ICU length of stay (LOS) was 3days (IQR 2-7days), median hospital LOS was 6days (IQR 3-12days), and overall mortality rate was 28.8%. For institutions rounding doses to the nearest vial size, the first post-I4F-PCC dose INR was statistically but not clinically significantly lower than for institutions without vial size dose rounding, with comparable degrees of INR reduction from baseline. No differences were observed between dose rounding cohorts in adverse effects, ICU or hospital LOS, modified Rankin score at discharge, or mortality rates. Most patients received single doses of I4F-PCC, with adjunctive reversal agents and rounding doses to vial size. The time difference from baseline INR to factor product administration is a potential opportunity for process improvement in the management of warfarin-related ICH.

Cost Avoidance from Automated Dose Rounding of Biological and Cytotoxic Anticancer Drugs in an Integrated Delivery Network

Background: Projected costs of cancer care are expected to reach $172.8 billion dollars by 2020[1]. Cost of oncology drugs have outpaced other areas[2] with novel drugs priced at a median of $115,981/year between 2009 and 2013[3], making cost control an important priority. Rounding drug doses to the nearest vial size, as long as the difference is smaller than an accepted percentage, has been shown to reduce the cost of care[4]. This also allows workflow efficiency by simplifying compounding and decreasing waste documentation[5] and reduces the potential for medication errors[6]. Dose rounding has been recommended by the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA)[5] and the HOPA position paper was endorsed by NCCN[7]. Methods In accordance with HOPA position statement, an integrated community-based healthcare system comprised of 13 providers across 8 infusion centers implemented dose rounding to the nearest vial if within 10% based on actual calculated dose for biological and cytotoxic agents. Performed manually by oncology pharmacists at the time of initial introduction in January 2020, this was transitioned to automated dose rounding by the oncology chemotherapy software (Epic Beacon, Epic Systems, Verona, WI) in June 2020. To facilitate provider adoption and maximize cost-savings, we compiled a list of 31 biological and chemotherapy agents that provided the greatest therapeutic margin and potential for cost savings. Dose rounding parameters for each agent was developed to standardize and facilitate automated dose rounding. Lower and upper bounds were set so that the vial size was within 10% of the actual calculated dose (e.g. doses between 91 mg and 111 mg to a 100 mg vial, Table 1). Cost avoidance was calculated based on the acquisition price of the lowest vial size available and necessary to make the pre-rounded dose. Results Total cost avoidance between January 2020 and July 2020 by dose rounding 31 different chemotherapy and biological agents was $679,780.02. Automated dose rounding drugs introduced in June 2020 high value drugs resulted in cost savings of $ 112,994.12 over a seven week period. Dose rounding of biological drugs accounted for 89.4% of the total cost savings. Rounding of cytotoxic drugs resulted in a cost saving of $71,588.35. Trastuzumab dose rounding was associated with the greatest amount of cost avoidance of $147,194.44, accounting for 21.65% of total cost avoidance. Dose rounding up to the nearest vial ranged between 0.13%-9.75% (median 3.52%). Dose rounding down to the nearest vial ranged between -0.10% -9.93% (median -3.36%). Conclusions: We demonstrate feasibility of implementing an automated EHR based dose rounding protocol in an integrated delivery network, widespread adoption across multiple centers and significant cost avoidance accrued from the intervention. Similar dose rounding protocols should prioritize biologics agents due to their high utilization and costs.

Pharmacoeconomic savings associated with alternate dosing strategy of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy.

79 Background: Nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) is a commonly used therapy for advanced melanoma. Original weight-based dosing of NIVO 1 mg/kg plus IPI 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) was approved in 2017. Recently, the CHECKMATE 511 trial demonstrated improved tolerability of NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg (NIVO3 + IPI1) compared to the original dosing regimen without observed differences in efficacy.Objective: To determine the pharmacoeconomic implications of NIVO1+IPI3 and NIVO3+IPI1 with a dose banding strategy applied. Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma (N = 21) who received IPI and NIVO in combination between 4/2019 – 7/2019 were evaluated via a single-center retrospective chart review. A total of 118 checkpoint inhibitor doses (59 NIVO, 59 IPI) were analyzed.Weapplied a dose banding strategy to both NIVO1+IPI3 and NIVO3+IPI1 regimens to examine pharmaceutical expenditures using the two dosing regimens, whichincluded our organization 10% dose-vial rounding policy. Pharmaceutical expenditure using average wholesale price (AWP), which was $32.42 per mg of NIVO and $180.03 per mg of IPI, was calculated for each dosing strategy (NIVO1+IPI3 and NIVO3+IPI1). Results: The anticipated cost savings of patients receiving NIVO3+IPI1 combination therapy compared to NIVO1+IPI3, (both with dose rounding strategy applied), was $1,459,473 or &gt;$70,000 per patient, representing a 47.2% savings from the original NIVO1 +IPI3 regimen (Table). Conclusions: In addition to improved tolerability and comparable efficacy for NIVO3+IPI1 vs NIVO1+IPI3, our study shows that adoption of the NIVO3+IPI1 regimen results in significant savings in drug costs. Considerations should be made in future combination trials to compare NIVO3+IPI1 as a treatment arm to NIVO1+IPI3 to see if comparable clinical results can be obtained with less toxicity and decreased pharmaceutical spending. [Table: see text]

Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Rounding in IRIS: Risk Assessment Ramifications

Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Rounding in IRIS: Risk Assessment Ramifications

Expansion of pharmacist practice in oral oncolytic therapy with a collaborative practice agreement.

Collaborative practice agreements have been utilized to expand pharmacist roles and improve patient care outcomes. A need to reduce the time providers spend reviewing oral oncolytic prescriptions for therapy continuation or dose adjustments was identified in the oncology clinics of a community health system. A collaborative practice agreement was created to decrease turnaround time for processing oral oncolytic prescriptions, improve provider satisfaction, and decrease patient prescription costs. A three-month pilot was initiated to evaluate feasibility and provider satisfaction by comparing two provider groups. An additional three months of data were collected post-collaborative practice agreement implementation to evaluate impact. Primary endpoints included: interventions, turnaround time, and patient cost savings. A survey was conducted to determine provider satisfaction. The mean turnaround time for pharmacist interventions in the pilot group (n = 54) was 7 min, compared to 3311 min in the control group (n = 87), which was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Two interventions in the pilot group resulted in patient cost savings due to dose rounding by a pharmacist. The mean turnaround time of the post-collaborative practice agreement group (n = 197) was 6 min, which was statistically significant when compared to the control group (p < 0.0001). Turnaround time was significantly shorter for prescriptions in the pilot and post-collaborative practice agreement groups compared to the control group. Provider satisfaction increased as the collaborative practice agreement resulted in less time reviewing oral oncolytic prescriptions. Patient costs were also reduced during the pilot phase due to dose rounding by pharmacists.

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US

Aims: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Materials and methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled.Limitations: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources.Conclusions: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.

Development of an Interprofessional Pharmacist-Nurse Navigation Pediatric Discharge Program.

Numerous challenges face clinically complex patients as they transition from hospital to home. The purpose of this project was to add pharmacy discharge services to an existing nurse-led discharge service (patient navigation program) to facilitate the transition of care process for clinically complex pediatric patients. For select patients referred to the service, a pharmacist resolved medication discrepancies, provided discharge counseling, and conducted follow-up telephone encounters on days 1, 7, and 14 post discharge. Patient demographics, admitting diagnosis, and number of discharge medications were recorded. The impact on patient outcomes was measured by the number and type of pharmacist interventions identified. Program utilization was measured by the number of referrals received, percentage of patients seen by a pharmacist, follow-up phone call completion rate, and pharmacist time required. Financial benefit gained from the program was estimated by translating each pharmaceutical intervention into potential cost savings. There were 321 patient navigation referrals during the 5 months of pharmacist service. A pharmacist was able to provide discharge counseling for 56 discharges (17%). Patients who were provided pharmacy services had a median of 8 comorbidities, 10-day length of stay, and 4 discharge medications. Pharmacists identified 168 interventions, of which 93.5% were accepted or informational in nature. The most frequently identified interventions included clarification of drug order, assistance obtaining medication, and dose rounding. This program resulted in an estimated cost savings of $22,308 in the first 5 months. A unique partnership between nurses and pharmacists facilitated the discharge process for clinically complex children.

Dose Rounding of Biologic and Cytotoxic Anticancer Agents: A Position Statement of the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association.

To present a position statement from the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) that pertains to dose rounding of biologic and cytotoxic anticancer agents. The HOPA Standards Committee organized a work group of oncology pharmacist specialists to examine the safety and value of dose rounding of biologic and cytotoxic anticancer agents. Primary literature that describes methods for dose rounding, with clinical or economic data, were analyzed. Relevant pharmacokinetic characteristics and aspects of product formulation were considered. Issues for institutional application were addressed. Rounding of biologic and cytotoxic agents within 10% of the ordered dose is designated as acceptable for routine clinical care. Dose changes ≤ 10% are not expected to reduce the safety or effectiveness of therapy. The rounding amount-10%-is rational in the context of standard dose adjustments for patient tolerance and tumor response (≥ 20%), clinical trial deficiency criteria (> 10%), and the influence of interpatient pharmacokinetic variability. HOPA supports the use of the same threshold for dose rounding of anticancer drugs as that used for palliative and curative therapy. Potential exceptions to dose rounding are discussed. Dose rounding reduces waste and health care costs. HOPA recommends that each institution develop its own dose-rounding policy that addresses biologic and cytotoxic agents. Institutional guidelines for dose rounding of anticancer agents, including criteria for automatic dose rounding, the allowable percentage, and institutional processes for operationalizing and documenting dose rounding, should be determined by collaborative stakeholder consensus. Exceptions to dose rounding should be determined a priori. Additional studies that evaluate the impact of dose rounding on patient outcome are warranted.

Global Initiative to Establish and Implement Dose Rounding Policy for Expensive Cancer Therapy

Global Initiative to Establish and Implement Dose Rounding Policy for Expensive Cancer Therapy

Assessment of the potential impact of dose rounding parenteral chemotherapy agents on cost savings and drug waste minimization.

Background Fiscally responsible utilization of anticancer treatments is necessary to combat their continually increasing cost. Dose rounding is one strategy that has been explored to minimize cost and waste without losing clinical effectiveness. Objectives To determine if dose rounding chemotherapy agents is a feasible cost-containment strategy at an institution with a small oncology clinic. Methods This study is a retrospective chart review of all body surface area dosed parenteral chemotherapy prescribed for an oncological diagnosis over a 12-month period (1 October 2015-30 September 2016). Chemotherapy doses were rounded down by 5%. Doses for patients with metastatic diagnoses were also rounded down by 10%. Rounded doses were evaluated for a potential decrease in vial size. Cost was represented as dollar/milligram of drug. Potential for drug waste minimization was also calculated. Results There were 877 total doses of chemotherapy administered to 70 unique patients throughout the 12-month duration of the study. When doses were rounded down by 5%, 140 doses qualified for a decrease in vial number. The potential for cost savings was $22,849 with 83,802 mg saved from wastage. A 10% decrease resulted in the reduction of vials for 248 doses, a potential savings of $30,911 with 129,011 milligrams saved. The targeted agents accounted for the majority of savings, $16,920 of the $22,849 with 5% rounding and $20,086 of the $30,911 with 10% rounding. Conclusion Dose rounding has the potential to be an effective cost-containment strategy in low volume oncology clinics.

The impact of logarithmic dose banding of anticancer drugs on pharmacy compounding efficiency at Ghent University Hospital

BackgroundDose banding (DB) (dose rounding with predetermined variation with prescription) enables in-advance preparation of high-turnover anticancer drugs with potential benefit for pharmacy compounding work flow.ObjectivesTo analyse the impact of potential...

Rising cost of antidotes in the U.S.: cost comparison from 2010 to 2015

Context: Our poison control center observed a large increase in the cost of many antidotes over the past several years. The high cost of antidotes has previously been cited as a factor leading to inadequate antidote supply at some hospitals. Continued increases in the cost of antidotes may lead to further reductions in antidote supply and represent serious concerns. This research aims to quantify recent trends in the costs of antidotes in the U.S.Methods: Antidotes and minimum stocking recommendations were retrieved from published guidelines. RED BOOK Online® was used to identify the U.S. average wholesale price (AWP) of each antidote in 2010 and 2015. The AWP in 2010 was adjusted using the U.S. Consumer Price Index to adjust for inflation. The cost of minimum stocking levels for each antidote was calculated and compared between the year 2010 and 2015.Results: The cost of stocking many antidotes demonstrated a large increase in AWP from 2010 to 2015. Of the antidotes evaluated, 15 out of 33 had greater than 50% increase in AWP and 8 out of 33 had greater than $1000 increase in AWP. Only four antidotes demonstrated decreases in AWP greater than 10% and only one antidote had its cost of stocking decrease in AWP by more than $1000.Discussion: The price increase over the last 5 years may further hinder the willingness of hospitals to stock recommended antidotes at adequate quantities. This may impede timely treatment of patients, and negatively impact poisoning outcomes.Conclusions: The price of many antidotes substantially increased in the United States from 2010 to 2015. Strategies should be investigated to help decrease the cost associated with stocking and use of antidotes, including dose rounding, consignment, and regional sharing.

Evaluation of the dosing strategies of biologic agents and the theoretical impact of dose rounding.

Introduction Monoclonal antibodies possess unique pharmacokinetic properties that permit flexible dosing. Increased use and high costs of these medications have led to the development of cost-containing strategies. This study aims to quantify the cost savings and clinical impact associated with dose rounding monoclonal antibodies to the nearest vial size. Methods This study was a single-arm, retrospective chart review assessing all monoclonal antibody doses dispensed at an outpatient community infusion center associated with an academic medical center between August 2014 and August 2015. All monoclonal antibody doses were reviewed to determine the cost of drug wasted using two methods. The waste-cost analysis described the amount of drug disposed of due to the use of partial vials. The theoretical dose savings described potential cost avoidance based on rounding the ordered dose to the nearest vial size. The theoretical rounded dose was compared to the actual ordered dose to explore clinical implications. Results A total of 436 doses were included. Of these, 237 were not rounded to the nearest vial size and included in the analysis. The cost of waste associated with these doses was $108,013.64 using actual wholesale price. The potential cost avoidance associated with the theoretical dose calculation was $83,595.53. Rounding these doses to the nearest vial size resulted in a median 6.7% (range, 1.4-20%) deviation from ordered dose. Conclusions Rounding monoclonal antibodies to the nearest vial size could lead to significant cost and waste savings with minimal deviation from the actual ordered dose.

Cost savings analysis and toxicity audit of a bevacizumab dose rounding policy at a community cancer center.

Purpose To evaluate the potential cost savings incurred from a policy to round doses of bevacizumab to the nearest vial size. Secondarily, to determine differences in rates of adverse events between patients who had their doses rounded up compared with those who had doses rounded down. Methods This study is a retrospective chart review of all patients who received at least one rounded dose of bevacizumab over a period of 22 months. Doses of bevacizumab were calculated based on actual body weight. The calculated dose was then rounded to the nearest 400 or 100 mg vial size. The predicted effect on cost was calculated in US dollars for both the pre-rounded dose and the rounded dose. Adverse events including hypertension, proteinuria, and vascular events were compared between those that received a dose that was rounded up and those with a dose rounded down. Results A total of 55 patients received at least one dose bevacizumab between 1 August 2014 and 31 May 2016. A total of 470 doses were administered. The estimated cost savings by rounding bevacizumab doses to the nearest 100 mg during the study time period was $164,617.92. Patients receiving either a dose that was rounded up or rounded down to the nearest 100 mg experienced similar rates of adverse events. Conclusion Dose rounding of bevacizumab to the nearest vial size resulted in significant cost savings and did not significantly impact the incidence of adverse events.

APPROPRIATE DOSE ROUNDING OF CYTOKINE MODULATORS FOR PAEDIATRIC RHEUMATOLOGY INPATIENTS

BackgroundCytokine modulators (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, anakinra, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and abatacept) are high-cost biologics used primarily in paediatrics to treat patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.1 Funding mechanisms are unreliable and...

AN AUDIT OF WHETHER PRESCRIBED DOSES ARE MEASURABLE ON THE GRADUATIONS OF ONE ORAL SYRINGE

AimIn paediatrics drugs are prescribed as mg/kg doses to facilitate accurate dosing. Anecdotally, some drugs are prescribed in such a way that the volume to be given is difficult to...

RATES AND TYPES OF PRESCRIBING ERRORS AND RELATED INTERVENTIONS IN PAEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY

AimThe aim of the pharmacy intervention audit was to prospectively record the number and type of interventions made to paediatric oncology chemotherapy prescriptions. This baseline data will be used in...