Patient Involvement in Evaluation of Safety in Oral Antineoplastic Treatment

A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Patients and Health Care Professionals

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

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 HCPs and patients on acceptability and feasibility of FMEAs analyzed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Patients and HCPs found failures in information regarding treatment (cause, aim, and plan) to be of high risk. Also, HCPs found failures in checking for potential interactions to be of high risk. HCPs focused on the in-hospitals procedures, whereas patients identified risks related to both the hospital and the home setting. Both HCPs 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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalQuality Management in Health Care
Volume28
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)33-38
Number of pages6
ISSN1063-8628
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1. Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Patient Participation
Treatment Failure
Delivery of Health Care
Safety
Medical Oncology
Denmark
Outpatients
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Interviews

Cite this

@article{67a94cb016454d80b8bd5658b6c7aa78,
title = "Patient Involvement in Evaluation of Safety in Oral Antineoplastic Treatment: A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Patients and Health Care Professionals",
abstract = "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 HCPs and patients on acceptability and feasibility of FMEAs analyzed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Patients and HCPs found failures in information regarding treatment (cause, aim, and plan) to be of high risk. Also, HCPs found failures in checking for potential interactions to be of high risk. HCPs focused on the in-hospitals procedures, whereas patients identified risks related to both the hospital and the home setting. Both HCPs 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.",
author = "Mattsson, {Thea Otto} and Henriette Lipczak and Anton Potteg{\aa}rd",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/QMH.0000000000000199",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "33--38",
journal = "Quality Management in Health Care",
issn = "1063-8628",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

Patient Involvement in Evaluation of Safety in Oral Antineoplastic Treatment : A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Patients and Health Care Professionals. / Mattsson, Thea Otto; Lipczak, Henriette; Pottegård, Anton.

In: Quality Management in Health Care, Vol. 28, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 33-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient Involvement in Evaluation of Safety in Oral Antineoplastic Treatment

T2 - A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Patients and Health Care Professionals

AU - Mattsson, Thea Otto

AU - Lipczak, Henriette

AU - Pottegård, Anton

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - 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 HCPs and patients on acceptability and feasibility of FMEAs analyzed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Patients and HCPs found failures in information regarding treatment (cause, aim, and plan) to be of high risk. Also, HCPs found failures in checking for potential interactions to be of high risk. HCPs focused on the in-hospitals procedures, whereas patients identified risks related to both the hospital and the home setting. Both HCPs 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.

AB - 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 HCPs and patients on acceptability and feasibility of FMEAs analyzed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Patients and HCPs found failures in information regarding treatment (cause, aim, and plan) to be of high risk. Also, HCPs found failures in checking for potential interactions to be of high risk. HCPs focused on the in-hospitals procedures, whereas patients identified risks related to both the hospital and the home setting. Both HCPs 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.

U2 - 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000199

DO - 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000199

M3 - Journal article

VL - 28

SP - 33

EP - 38

JO - Quality Management in Health Care

JF - Quality Management in Health Care

SN - 1063-8628

IS - 1

ER -