Search

Objectives: To identify risks associated with delivery of treatment with oral antineoplastic agents in an outpatient setting and to evaluate additional value and feasibility of engaging patients in a proactive risk analysis. Methods: We conducted 2 separate but parallel failure mode and effects analyses (FMEAs) among patients and health care professionals (HCPs) at a clinical oncology department in Denmark. Comparative analyses were performed using the FMEA process maps and risk priority numbers (RPNs) as main outcome measures. The FMEAs were augmented by semistructured interviews with FICPs and patients on acceptability and feasibility of FMEAs analyzed using systematic text condensation. Results: Patients and FICPs found failures in information regarding treatment (cause, aim, and plan) to be of high risk. Also, FICPs found failures in checking for potential interactions to be of high risk. FICPs focused on the in-hospitals procedures, whereas patients identified risks related to both the hospital and the home setting. Both FICPs and patients found participation in the FMEA process meaningful but found the use of RPNs difficult. Conclusions: Patient engagement in proactive risk analysis using FMEA is acceptable, meaningful, and feasible, with patients providing a different perspective on the risks associated with oral antineoplastic treatment compared with HCPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patients in anticancer treatment with a known side effect of neutropenia are monitored closely with laboratory measurements of white blood cell count (WBC) and differentiation. This study sought to evaluate measurement properties and feasibility of patients' self‐testing using a point‐of‐care testing (POCT) device. Methods: A prospective feasibility and measurement study comparing the standard measurement of cancer patients' WBC and neutrophil count with POCT measurements. The study included 60 outpatients and 22 inpatients from a department of oncology at a university hospital. Results: Patients successfully conducted 106 measurements using the POCT device. 46% of the patients were >70 years. Weighted Deming regression analysis showed minimal yet significant proportional bias between methods, with POCT increasingly underestimating both total WBC and neutrophils compared with the standard method the higher the count. Over 90% of patients reported they were willing and considered themselves able to use the POCT device at home. Conclusions: The instrument can be used for self‐testing of post‐anticancer leukopenia and has sufficient measurement precision for patient risk stratification. Patients are able and willing to conduct measurements including when in a situation of acute illness. Further studies are needed to confirm safety and value within patients' own home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]