Improving documentation of quality measures in the electronic health record

PurposeOncology quality measures provide an important tool to evaluate care received by cancer patients. These measures are frequently addressed by oncology nurse practitioners (NPs). NP documentation of quality oncology practice initiative (QOPI) measures in the electronic health record (EHR) is evaluated in this study.Data sourcesNP documentation of specific QOPI measures before and after an educational intervention (EI) was evaluated. EHR shortcuts, called “SmartPhrases,” were used to increase efficiency in documentation of these measures.ConclusionsPreintervention chart audits found compliance <80% in the multiple measurement areas. Following the EI, NPs surveyed identified greater understanding of QOPI measures and an interest in using “SmartPhrases” to aid in measure documentation. The postintervention audit demonstrated improvement in all areas addressed during the EI noting the use of “SmartPhrases” based on descriptive findings.Implications for practiceNPs play a significant role in providing quality care for oncology patients. By increasing knowledge related to the documentation of quality measures and providing tools to increase the efficiency associated with their documentation, a positive impact can be made in efforts to promote quality patient care.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/111963/1/jaan12169.pd

Improved regional selectivity of hepatic arterial mitomycin by starch microspheres

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109929/1/cptclpt1983163.pd

Constant intraperitoneal 5‐fluorouracil infusion through a totally implanted system

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109794/1/cptclpt198412.pd

Incest in the 1990s: reading Anais Nin's 'Father Story'

In the summer of 1933, diarist, author and critic Anaïs Nin joined her father for a short vacation in France. Nin wrote about the trip in her diary afterwards, referring to it as the ‘Father Story.’ In the story, she details how, aged 30, she embarked upon an affair with her father which would last for several months. Rather than displaying the signs of trauma that we have come to expect from the incest narrative such as dissociation, blame and recrimination, the ‘Father Story’ is more ambiguous in its tone. Part-tribute to the father, part-seduction narrative, part-confession, this is a story that resists categorisation – a resistance that has ethical, critical and formal ramifications for our reading of incest narratives. Upon its publication in the early 1990s, critics responded to the ‘Father Story’ as fantastical, excessive and vulgar. These responses form part of a wider American father story during this period; a story about memory, therapy culture, family values and the concealed rules of testimony. This article reads Anaïs Nin’s narrative as a text which raises fundamental questions about why certain father (and daughter) stories are culturally acceptable and others are not

A multi-centre, open label, randomised, parallel-group, superiority Trial to compare the efficacy of URsodeoxycholic acid with RIFampicin in the management of women with severe early onset Intrahepatic Cholestasis of pregnancy : the TURRIFIC randomised trial

BackgroundSevere early onset (less than 34weeks gestation) intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) affects 0.1% of pregnant women in Australia and is associated with a 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth, fetal hypoxia and compromise, spontaneous preterm birth, as well as increased frequencies of pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes. ICP is often familial and overlaps with other cholestatic disorders.Treatment options for ICP are not well established, although there are limited data to support the use of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) to relieve pruritus, the main symptom. Rifampicin, a widely used antibiotic including in pregnant women, is effective in reducing pruritus in non-pregnancy cholestasis and has been used as a supplement to UDCA in severe ICP. Many women with ICP are electively delivered preterm, although there are no randomised data to support this approach.MethodsWe have initiated an international multicentre randomised clinical trial to compare the clinical efficacy of rifampicin tablets (300mg bd) with that of UDCA tablets (up to 2000mg daily) in reducing pruritus in women with ICP, using visual pruritus scores as a measuring tool.DiscussionOur study will be the first to examine the outcomes of treatment specifically in the severe early onset form of ICP, comparing "standard" UDCA therapy with rifampicin, and so be able to provide for the first-time high-quality evidence for use of rifampicin in severe ICP. It will also allow an assessment of feasibility of a future trial to test whether elective early delivery in severe ICP is beneficial.Trial identifiersAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration Number (ANZCTR): 12618000332224p (29/08/2018). HREC No: HREC/18/WCHN/36.EudraCT number: 2018-004011-44.IRAS: 272398.NHMRC registration: APP1152418 and APP117853.Peer reviewe

A multi-centre, open label, randomised, parallel-group, superiority Trial to compare the efficacy of URsodeoxycholic acid with RIFampicin in the management of women with severe early onset Intrahepatic Cholestasis of pregnancy: the TURRIFIC randomised trial

BackgroundSevere early onset (less than 34weeks gestation) intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) affects 0.1% of pregnant women in Australia and is associated with a 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth, fetal hypoxia and compromise, spontaneous preterm birth, as well as increased frequencies of pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes. ICP is often familial and overlaps with other cholestatic disorders.Treatment options for ICP are not well established, although there are limited data to support the use of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) to relieve pruritus, the main symptom. Rifampicin, a widely used antibiotic including in pregnant women, is effective in reducing pruritus in non-pregnancy cholestasis and has been used as a supplement to UDCA in severe ICP. Many women with ICP are electively delivered preterm, although there are no randomised data to support this approach.MethodsWe have initiated an international multicentre randomised clinical trial to compare the clinical efficacy of rifampicin tablets (300mg bd) with that of UDCA tablets (up to 2000mg daily) in reducing pruritus in women with ICP, using visual pruritus scores as a measuring tool.DiscussionOur study will be the first to examine the outcomes of treatment specifically in the severe early onset form of ICP, comparing "standard" UDCA therapy with rifampicin, and so be able to provide for the first-time high-quality evidence for use of rifampicin in severe ICP. It will also allow an assessment of feasibility of a future trial to test whether elective early delivery in severe ICP is beneficial.Trial identifiersAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration Number (ANZCTR): 12618000332224p (29/08/2018). HREC No: HREC/18/WCHN/36.EudraCT number: 2018-004011-44.IRAS: 272398.NHMRC registration: APP1152418 and APP117853

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Clinical effectiveness of olaparib monotherapy in germline BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting: phase IIIb LUCY interim analysis

Background: In the phase III OlympiAD trial, olaparib significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy of physician's choice in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The phase IIIb LUCY trial assessed the clinical effectiveness of olaparib in similar patients, in a setting reflecting clinical practice. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial of olaparib (300 mg, twice daily) enrolled patients with BRCAm, HER2-negative mBC who had received taxane and/or anthracycline in the (neo)adjuvant/metastatic setting and not more than two lines of prior chemotherapy for mBC. Patients with hormone receptor-positive mBC had progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy in an adjuvant/metastatic setting and were unsuitable for further endocrine treatment. This interim analysis was planned after 160 PFS events. Results: Of 563 patients screened, 252 patients with gBRCAm were enrolled and received at least one dose of olaparib. The median investigator-assessed PFS was 8.11 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.93-8.67; 166/252 events [65.9% maturity]). The investigator-assessed clinical response rate was 48.6%, and median time to first subsequent treatment or death was 9.66 months (95% CI, 8.67-11.14). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; &gt;20% patients) were nausea, anaemia, asthenia, vomiting and fatigue. Eleven patients (4.4%) discontinued treatment because of a TEAE. Grade 3 or higher TEAEs occurred in 64 patients (25.4%), including anaemia (33 patients; 13.1%). Conclusion: Olaparib was clinically effective in patients with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC with safety outcomes consistent with previous findings. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03286842