Filtering by
- Creators: Darby, Alexis
- Creators: Barbosa, Jennifer
- Creators: Casey, Kathleen
- Creators: Clark, Caroline Marie
In 1994, the Eastern Virginia District court case Bailey v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Virginia established that insurance companies could not deny coverage for experimental stem cell therapy treatments. The plaintiff, Mary Bailey, was diagnosed with advanced stage breast cancer and sought treatment involving high-dose chemotherapy and an advanced stem cell treatment, which was a novelty at the time. Stem cells are cells that have the potential to develop into several different types of cells in the body. The defendant was the health insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield, which denied coverage for Bailey’s treatment. The district court sided with Bailey and ordered that BCBS could not deny coverage for her specific treatment. While Bailey v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Virginia resulted in Bailey receiving compensation for her treatment, it also increased national awareness of stem cell therapy with chemotherapy.
On 15 April 1999, physician Gillian Thomas published the editorial “Improved Treatment for Cervical Cancer – Concurrent Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy,” henceforth “Improved Treatment,” in The New England Journal of Medicine. In that editorial, she discusses the potential benefits of combining chemotherapy drugs with radiation to treat women with cervical cancer. At the time, healthcare professionals rarely treated cervical cancer by combining chemotherapy or radiation. Two months prior to Thomas’s publication, the US National Cancer Institute, headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, released an announcement advocating for combining chemotherapy with radiation based on clinical trial results. In “Improved Treatment,” Thomas summarized the results of those clinical trials that had led to the announcement and communicated a new way to treat invasive cervical cancers, which persists as of 2019.
Background:
Thirty to fifty percent of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy will experience
chemotherapy induced nausea and or vomiting (CINV) despite the use of antiemetic prophylaxis Uncontrollable CINV can lead to complications that add extra stress to patients, increase in healthcare costs, and utilization of resources. CINV can lead to chemotherapy dose reductions, treatment delays, chemotherapy changes, or discontinuation of treatment. Guidelines exist to better prevent and treat CINV. Evidence supports the use of guidelines to prevent CINV, however patients still suffer from CINV often due to a lack of guideline adherence.
Objectives:
The purpose of this project was to increase CINV guideline adherence by increasing knowledge of antiemetic guidelines utilizing an educational intervention for providers and nurses at an outpatient oncology office.
Methods:
A brief educational intervention on CINV and recommended NCCN guidelines was
conducted with providers and nurse (n=6) at an oncology practice in Southwestern United States. An evaluation to assess change in knowledge was performed using a pre and post test format. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, McNemar tests and Wicoxan Signed Rank Test.
Findings:
There was a significant effect on knowledge of NCCN antiemetic guidelines (Z=-1.89, p=0.059, mean 2.5) post intervention. There also was a significant impact on likelihood to use guidelines in practice (Z=-1.89, p=0.059, mean 2.5). Increasing awareness and likelihood to CHEMOTHERAPY INDUCED NAUSEA AND VOMITING 3 follow recommended guidelines may improve CINV symptoms in patients undergoing chemotherapy and improve the treatment outcomes for these patients.