Integrated care: utilisation of complementary and alternative medicine within a conventional cancer treatment centre

Objectives: To estimate the proportion of cancer outpatients who visit a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) unit that is located within a conventional cancer treatment centre; to compare the characteristics of CAM unit visitors with those of all outpatients; to monitor the demand for 20 CAM therapies delivered by professionals, and the use of the CAM unit for waiting, gathering information and informal support from volunteer staff.

Design: Prospective, observational, over a six month period.

Setting: CAM unit within a NHS cancer treatment centre.

Main outcome measures: Utilisation of the CAM unit for 20 complementary therapies, and for waiting, gathering information, informal support; characteristics of CAM users compared with those of all cancer outpatients attending the cancer centre; predictors of CAM therapy use and frequent use.

Results: 761 (95% of those approached) people were recruited, 498 (65.4%) cancer patients, 202 (26.5%) relatives, 37 (4.8%) friends/carers, 24 (3.2%) staff. Women predominated (n = 560, 73.6%). Of all outpatients attending the cancer centre, 498 (15.8%) visited the CAM unit, 290 (9.2%) accessed therapies. Compared to all outpatients, those visiting the CAM unit were: younger (mean 63.7 vs. 58.4 years), more likely to be female (57.9% vs. 78.7%), have breast (14.8% vs. 51.9%), gynaecological (5.0% vs. 9.1%) cancer, live in local postal district (57.3% vs. 61.6%). Significant predictors of therapy use and frequent visits were being a patient, female, higher education, living closer to the cancer centre.

Conclusions: Despite easy access to CAM therapies, a relatively small number of people regularly used them, whilst a larger number selectively tried a few. The integrated CAM unit meets a demand for information and informal support. The findings inform emerging policy on integrating CAM and conventional cancer treatment to address psychosocial needs of people with cancer. More research is needed on why people do not use integrated CAM services and how charges affect demand. © 2008.

Availability of complementary and alternative medicine for people with cancer in the British National Health Service: Results of a national survey

This study assessed access to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies for people with cancer within the British National Health Service. CAM units were identified through an internet search in 2009. A total of 142 units, providing 62 different therapies, were identified: 105 (74.0%) England; 23 (16.2%) Scotland; 7 (4.9%) each in Wales and Northern Ireland. Most units provide a small number of therapies (median 4, range 1–20), and focus on complementary, rather than alternative approaches. Counselling is the most widely provided therapy (available at 82.4% of identified units), followed by reflexology (62.0%), aromatherapy (59.1%), reiki (43.0%), massage (42.2%). CAM units per million of the population varied between countries (England: 2.2; Wales: 2.3; Scotland: 4.8; Northern Ireland: 5.0), and within countries. Better publicity for CAM units, greater integration of units in conventional cancer treatment centres may help improve access to CAMs.

An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) and Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) in General Practice (GP): A Novel GP-based MSK and SEM Clinic for Managing Musculoskeletal symptoms in a GP

Musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints are common within primary care (1) (2) (3) but some General Practitioners (GPs)/family physicians do not feel comfortable managing these symptoms (3), preferring to refer onto hospital specialists or Integrated Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services (ICATs). Long waiting times for hospital outpatient reviews are a major cause of patient inconvenience and complaints (4). We therefore aimed to establish a GP-ran MSK and sport and exercise medicine (SEM) clinic based within a Belfast GP surgery that would contribute to a sustainable improvement in managing these common conditions within primary care as well as reducing waiting times for patients with these conditions to see a specialist. This shift from hospital-based to community-based management is in-keeping with recent policy changes within the UK health-system, including Transforming Your Care within Northern Ireland (NI) (5). The GP-ran MSK and SEM clinic was held monthly within a Belfast GP practice, staffed by one GP with a specialist interest in MSK and SEM conditions and its performance was reviewed over a three month period. Parameters audited included cases seen, orthopaedic and x-ray referral rates and secondary care referrals comparing the GP practice’s performance to the same time period in the previous year as well as patient satisfaction questionnaires.

A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for the management of low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) in pregnancy

Aim: To evaluate and summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for the management of low back pain and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy.

Background: International research demonstrates that 25-30% of women use complementary and alternative medicine to manage low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy without robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness.

Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for low back and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy.

Data Sources: Cochrane library (1898-2013), PubMed (1996-2013), MEDLINE (1946-2013), AMED (1985-2013), Embase (1974-2013), Cinahl (1937-2013), Index to Thesis (1716-2013) and Ethos (1914-2013).

Review Methods: Selected studies were written in English, randomized controlled trials, a group 1 or 2 therapy and reported pain reduction as an outcome measure. Study quality was reviewed using Risk of Bias and evidence strength the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations and Development Evaluation Tool.

Results: Eight studies were selected for full review. Two acupuncture studies with low risk of bias showed both clinically important changes and statistically significant results. There was evidence of effectiveness for osteopathy and chiropractic. However, osteopathy and chiropractic studies scored high for risk of bias. Strength of the evidence across studies was very low.

Conclusion: There is limited evidence supporting the use of general CAM for managing pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic pain. However, the restricted availability of high-quality studies, combined with the very low evidence strength, makes it impossible to make evidence-based recommendations for practice.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) and Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) in General Practice (GP): A Novel GP-based clinic

The problem-Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common within primary care but some GPs are not comfortable managing these; waiting times for hospital appointments are a major cause of patients’ complaints. Current UK healthcare policies emphasise a need for more community-based management. We aimed to pilot an innovative general practice-based clinic to improve the management of MSK and Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) symptoms within general practice.

The approach-This project was conducted in an inner-city practice of approximately 9,000 patients and 5 GP partners. The practice commissioned a novel monthly 4-hour clinic staffed by one GP with a specialist interest in MSK and SEM conditions. Each patient was allocated a 20-minute appointment. All primary care staff within the practice could refer any patient for whom they considered hospital referral appropriate, with no specific exclusion criteria. Management plans included injection therapy, exercise prescription and onward referral. After three months (August-October 2014) numbers of consultations, sources of referral, reasons for referral and management outcomes were described; patient satisfaction was assessed by questionnaire, offered to 10 randomly selected patients by reception staff and self-completed by patients. Costs of the clinic were compared to current options.

Findings- All patients (14 males; 21 females; aged 35-77 years), were seen within four weeks of referral (one third of orthopaedic referrals in 2013 waited over 9 weeks for appointment). Most were referred from other GPs; some came from physiotherapy and podiatry. Shoulder problems were the most frequent reason for referral. The commonest management option was steroid injection, with most patients being given advice regarding exercise and analgesia; there were 3 onward referrals (2 physiotherapy; 1 rheumatology).

Comparing August-October data in 2014 and 2013, total, orthopaedic and rheumatology referrals were reduced by 147, 2 and 3, respectively; within the practice MSK presentations and physiotherapy and x-ray referrals were 60, 47 and 90 fewer, respectively.

The cost per attendance at the clinic was £61; initial orthopaedic-ICAT assessments cost £82 and a consultant appointment £213.

Satisfaction questionnaires were returned by all 10 selected participants and provided positive feedback, expressing preference for community-based, rather than hospital, management.

Consequence- Our pilot study indicates that this novel service model has potential for efficient and effective management of MSK and SEM complaints in primary care, reducing the need for hospital referral and the clinical burden on general practices. The innovation deserves further evaluation in a full-scale trial to determine its generalisability to other practice settings and populations.

Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.