PGY2 Oncology Pharmacy Resident Miami Cancer Institute Miami, Florida, United States
Poster Abstract:
Background: Oncology pharmacists have expertise in anticancer therapies and are vital members of the oncology team in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Due to increasing drug approvals and complexity, the roles of oncology pharmacists have also expanded to include managing chemotherapy and immunotherapy-related toxicities as well as making direct clinical decisions alongside physicians and advanced practice providers. There is limited data regarding the financial value of pharmacist interventions in the oncology setting. This study aims to evaluate the financial impact of pharmacist-led toxicity management in the oncology setting by defining cost avoided, provider hours saved, and total net monetary benefit.
Objectives: The main objectives of this study are to describe the financial impact of pharmacist-led toxicity management in the oncology setting, identify the annualized net monetary benefit of pharmacist-led toxicity management and prevention, and assess the incidence and outcomes of interventions accepted and not accepted related to toxicity management.
Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of interventions made by oncology pharmacists identified using Discern Analytics in Cerner between October 1st, 2022 to September 30th, 2023. Interventions by oncology pharmacists at Miami Cancer Institute and Baptist Hospital of Miami will be included in the analysis if they are related to toxicity management and prevention. For the purpose of this review, toxicity management and prevention are defined as any supportive care, dose adjustments, drug monitoring, and/or drug interactions performed by an oncology pharmacist in response to or to prevent a drug-induced toxicity. Any interventions unrelated to toxicity management or prevention will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the net monetary benefit of pharmacist-led toxicity management and prevention. Secondary endpoints include the total number of toxicity interventions as well as the incidence of different types of toxicity management. The following data points will be collected: type of toxicity intervention, number of interventions accepted and rejected, time spent by pharmacist per intervention, supportive care prescribed, and patient outcome (whether the patient continued therapy, discontinued therapy, had changes applied to therapy, hospitalized, or experienced toxicity). Data collected will be analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results: Pending.
Discussion/
Conclusion: Pending.
References (must also be included in final poster): Calloway, S., et al (2013). Impact of a clinical decision support system on pharmacy clinical interventions, documentation efforts, and costs. Hospital Pharmacy, 48(9), 744–752. 10.1310/hpj4809-744
IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Global Oncology Trends 2023: Outlook to 2027. May 2023. Available from: https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports-and-publications/reports/global-oncology-trends-2023
Lee GW, et al. Pharmacist value-added to neuro-oncology subspecialty clinics: A pilot study uncovers opportunities for best practices and optimal time utilization. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020 Dec;26(8):1937-1941.
M Segal E, Bates J, Fleszar SL, et al. Demonstrating the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team. Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice. 2019;25(8):1945-1967.
Randolph LA, Walker CK, Nguyen AT, et al. Impact of pharmacist interventions on cost avoidance in an ambulatory cancer center. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2016; 24: 3–8.
