In hospitals around the world, there has been no consensus regarding which clinical activities a pharmacist should focus on until recently. In 2011, a Canadian clinical pharmacy key performance indicator (cpKPI) collaborative was formed. The goal of the collaborative was to advance pharmacy practice in order to improve patient outcomes and enhance the quality of care provided to patients by hospital pharmacists. Following a literature review, which indicated that pharmacists can improve patient outcomes by carrying out specific activities, and an evidence-informed consensus process, a final set of eight cpKPIs were established. Canadian hospitals leading the cpKPI initiative are currently in the early stages of implementing these indicators. To explore pharmacists' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of cpKPIs. Clinical pharmacists employed by the Nova Scotia Health Authority were invited to participate in focus groups. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed, and data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Three focus groups, including 26 pharmacists, were conducted in February 2015. Three major themes were identified. Resisting the change was comprised of documentation challenges, increased workload, practice environment constraints, and competing priorities. Embracing cpKPIs was composed of seeing the benefit, demonstrating value, and existing supports. Navigating the unknown was made up of quality versus quantity battle, and insights into the future. Although pharmacists were challenged by documentation and other changes associated with the implementation of cpKPIs, they demonstrated significant support for cpKPIs and were able to see benefits of the implementation. Pharmacists came up with suggestions for overcoming resistance associated with the implementation of cpKPIs and provided insights into the future of pharmacy practice. The identification of barriers and facilitators to cpKPI implementation will be used to inform the implementation process on a local and national level.

To examine HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) drug dispensing patterns to Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare program (NSSPP) beneficiaries over a 14-year period in response to: 1) rosuvastatin market entry in 2003, 2) JUPITER trial publication in 2008, and 3) generic atorvastatin availability in 2010. All NSSPP beneficiaries who redeemed at least one prescription for a statin from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2013 were included. Aggregated, anonymous monthly prescription counts were extracted by the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness (Nova Scotia, Canada) and changes in dispensing patterns of statins were measured. Data were analyzed using descriptive analyses and interrupted time series methods. The percentage of NSSPP beneficiaries dispensed any statin increased from 5.3% in April 1999 to 20.7% in March 2013. In 1999, most NSSPP beneficiaries were dispensed either simvastatin (29.5%) or atorvastatin (28.7%). When rosuvastatin was added to the NSSPP Formulary in August 2003, prescriptions dispensed for simvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and fluvastatin declined significantly (slope change, -0.0027; 95% confidence interval (CI), (-0.0046, -0.0009)). This significant decline continued following the publication of JUPITER (level change, -0.1974; 95% CI, (-0.2991, -0.0957)) and the availability of generic atorvastatin (level change, -0.2436; 95% CI, (-0.3314, -0.1558)). Atorvastatin was not significantly affected by any of the three interventions, although it maintained an overall decreasing trend. Only upon the availability of generic atorvastatin did the upward trend in rosuvastatin use decrease significantly (slope change, -0.0010, 95% CI, (-0.0015, -0.0005)). The type and rate of statins dispensed to NSSPP beneficiaries changed from 1999 to 2013 in response to the availability of new agents and publication of the JUPITER trial. The overall proportion of NSSPP beneficiaries dispensed a statin increased approximately 4-fold during the study period. In 2013, rosuvastatin was the most commonly dispensed statin (44.1%) followed by atorvastatin (39.1%).

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) affect immunologic homeostasis, leading to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Early irAE detection and management can prevent significant morbidity and mortality. A retrospective chart review was performed to characterize irAEs associated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in adult medical oncology patients in Nova Scotia Health-Central Zone from 2013–2020, and to describe adherence to toxicity management guidelines. Diarrhea/colitis, hepatitis, pneumonitis, nephrotoxicity, and cardiotoxicity were studied. Of 129 charts reviewed, 67 patients (51.9%) experienced at least one irAE for a total of 98 irAEs and a 1.5% fatality rate. Of these irAEs, 33.7% led to an emergency room visit. Patients were admitted to hospital and steroids were used in 24.5% and 35.7% of cases, respectively. In 17.3% of irAEs, ICIs were permanently discontinued. In 20.4% of irAEs, ICIs were held, and patients were monitored; while in 18.4%, ICIs were held until the irAE was Grade 0–1 (and until steroids were tapered). Almost 47% of irAEs were managed according to guidelines (14.3% were not), and 38.8% had no documented management. Patients receiving immunotherapy frequently experience irAEs with half of irAEs having documented management adhering to guidelines. As immunotherapy indications expand, it is important to ensure irAEs are documented and managed appropriately.

Background: With the ever-increasing complexity of cancer treatments, oncology medication patient education is becoming a progressively important component of cancer care. Despite this, cancer patients frequently report that they receive inadequate information and feel that their education needs have not been met. Objective: To explore patients' perspectives of optimal oncology medication education across Nova Scotia. Methods: This was a descriptive survey of adult medical, hematological and gynaecological oncology outpatients receiving intravenous chemotherapy within the Nova Scotia Health Authority between January 26 and April 30, 2018. Results: One hundred forty-two responses were included; 41% and 47% of respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their oncology medication education, respectively; 30% and 43% of respondents would like the opportunity to receive education or follow-up from a hospital pharmacist, respectively. Respondents with post-secondary education were found to have 2.82 higher odds of wanting to make an appointment for education with a hospital pharmacist. Conclusions: Patients were generally satisfied with their oncology medication education despite the majority not receiving education from a hospital pharmacist. Patients with a higher level of formal education were more likely to want the opportunity to schedule an appointment for education with and/or receive follow-up from a hospital pharmacist. The oncology medication education participants received in the past appeared to align with their education preferences. Findings from this research can be used to optimize the limited time healthcare professionals have to provide meaningful and effective oncology medication patient education and improve patient-centered care.