Documentation of medical marijuana use in cancer patients

Purpose Medical marijuana is often used as adjuvant therapy in cancer patients for symptom management, although limited evidence-based studies evaluating its efficacy or safety exist. Similar to over-the-counter medications, supplements, or herbal products, documentation of medical marijuana is important to monitor efficacy, potential adverse effects, or interactions. The objective of this quality improvement study was to improve the consistency of medical marijuana documentation in cancer patients by assessing current practices; educating healthcare team members about the importance of documentation and newly established documentation process; and evaluating the new documentation process. Methods This three-part quality improvement study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. In part I, a voluntary survey was sent via email to Cancer Center healthcare personnel to assess the current documentation process of medical marijuana. In part II, a best practice process for documenting medical marijuana in the electronic medical record was established. Medical marijuana was to be listed as a historical medication in the medication list. In-person and electronic education sessions were offered to Cancer Center clinical staff. The education emphasized the importance of documenting medical marijuana use and provided a detailed process for electronic medical record documentation. A pre- and post-test to assess understanding was also included. Part III was a retrospective chart review to evaluate documentation practices of certified medical marijuana users in the Cancer Center. Patients included in the study were greater than 18 years old and certified for medical marijuana use on or after 1 January 2018. Department of Corrections patients were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Results The survey results in part I demonstrated a lack of consistency in the documentation of medical marijuana in the Cancer Center. The pre- and post-test scores measured in part II showed a significant improvement in understanding after education was provided. The average pre-test score was a 61 and post-test score was 88, indicating an average increase of 27 points. A larger increase in test scores was observed in those attending the in-person education than the online sessions ( p < 0.002). The results of the retrospective chart review in part III revealed 56 patients who met inclusion criteria, but only 39 patients were alive and evaluated at the time of the retrospective chart review. Of the 39 patients, 22 never completed the patient registration process and therefore, would never have been able to obtain medical marijuana. Seven patients had medical marijuana properly documented in their medication list and 10 patients were missing documentation in the medication list, showing room for improvement in documentation practices. Conclusions This quality improvement study led to the implementation of medical marijuana documentation in the medication list. Education increased healthcare team members understanding of medical marijuana utilization and the importance of documentation.