{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022316684378320937, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007438894792773645, 'mean_word_length': 5.583916083916084, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Impact of electronic interventions on guideline concordant ordering of rituximab infusion rate.

INTRODUCTION
Rituximab carries a boxed warning for severe or fatal infusion reactions; most occurring with the initial infusion. Prior studies established that if the initial rituximab infusion is tolerated, subsequent infusions can be given safely over 90 min. The University of Chicago Medicine (UCM) did not have a standardized method to document infusion reactions for outpatient chemotherapy patients, making it challenging for providers to know a patients' eligibility for rapid infusion. This quality improvement project focused on a series of interventions to improve documentation and electronic ordering of rituximab.


METHODS
A flowsheet for nurses to record patients' tolerance of chemotherapy infusions was created within the electronic health record (EHR). Following results of flowsheet impact, a second intervention was implemented to modify ordering of rituximab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of guideline concordant rate ordering of rituximab. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of accurate chair time scheduling pre- and post-interventions and nursing compliance with flowsheet documentation.


RESULTS
Prior to flowsheet implementation, 85% of patients were infused at the guideline concordant rate, compared to 79% post-implementation. Prior to modification of rituximab ordering in the EHR, 85% of patients were infused at the guideline concordant rate, compared to 87% after implementation. Complete nursing documentation was done 89% of the time when the flowsheet was utilized, compared to 11% pre-interventions.


CONCLUSION
No difference in primary or secondary endpoints was found following our interventions. However, the infusion documentation flowsheet, when used, provided more complete reaction data compared to when it was not used.