Decreasing drug waste, reducing drug costs, and improving workflow efficiency through the implementation of automated chemotherapy dose rounding rules in the electronic health record system

Purpose: To decrease drug waste and cost by implementing automated chemotherapy dose rounding rules in the electronic health record (EHR). Dose rounding of chemotherapy is a recognized method for reducing drug waste, and professional organizations have published guidelines recommending dose rounding when possible.

Summary: On the basis of current literature and guideline recommendations, Mayo Clinic developed system-wide consensus to allow dose rounding for biologic and chemotherapy agents to the nearest vial size if rounding resulted in the dose being within 10% of the originally calculated dose or to a convenient measurable volume, based on concentration of the drug, if rounding to the nearest vial size resulted in the dose being outside the 10% range. Oncology pharmacists reviewed and analyzed all drugs listed in the EHR used in injectable form for the treatment of cancer and developed dose rounding rules. The rules were implemented and applied at the dose calculation stage before provider signature. From January to June 2019, approximately 40,000 cancer treatment doses were administered. The rounding rules saved a total of 9,814 vials of drug, of which 5,329 were for biologic agents and 4,485 were for oncolytic drugs. This resulted in a total 6-month cost savings of $7,284,796 (in 2019 dollars; biologics, $5,727,402; oncolytics, $1,557,394).

Conclusion: Systematic implementation of dose rounding rules utilizing the EHR can result in significant reduction of drug waste and realization of savings.

Keywords: biologics; chemotherapy; cost savings; dose rounding; oncology.

© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Similar articles

Shah VS, Irvine C, McWilliams RR, Singh P, Soefje SA. Shah VS, et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2024 Aug 5:OP2300688. doi: 10.1200/OP.23.00688. Online ahead of print. JCO Oncol Pract. 2024. PMID: 39102643

Dela-Pena JC, Eschenburg KA, LaRocca VW, Patel D, Hough SM. Dela-Pena JC, et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2021 Aug;5:805-810. doi: 10.1200/CCI.21.00024. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2021. PMID: 34351786

Fahey OG, Koth SM, Bergsbaken JJ, Jones HA, Trapskin PJ. Fahey OG, et al. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020 Mar;26(2):345-350. doi: 10.1177/1078155219846958. Epub 2019 May 2. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020. PMID: 31046608

Shrank WH, Rogstad TL, Parekh N. Shrank WH, et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 15;322(15):1501-1509. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.13978. JAMA. 2019. PMID: 31589283 Review.

Johnson KB, Lee CK, Spooner SA, Davison CL, Helmke JS, Weinberg ST. Johnson KB, et al. Pediatrics. 2011 Aug;128(2):e422-8. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-0760. Epub 2011 Jul 25. Pediatrics. 2011. PMID: 21788218 Free PMC article. Review.

Cited by

Stonerock DS, Clark K, Shah V, Irvine CC, Draper E, Soefje SA. Stonerock DS, et al. J Pharm Technol. 2023 Dec;39(6):281-285. doi: 10.1177/87551225231197346. Epub 2023 Sep 29. J Pharm Technol. 2023. PMID: 37974597

MeSH terms

Antineoplastic Agents*