Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding:long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem affecting women and health services. However, long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of commencing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice. Design and setting: A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label, long term, randomised controlled trial in 63 primary care practices across the English Midlands. Method: In total, 571 women aged 25–50 years, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, and work and family life; scores from 0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality of life, sexual activity, and safety. Results: At 5 years post-randomisation, 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% confidence interval = −0.6 to 8.3; P = 0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of surgical intervention were low in both groups (surgery-free survival was 80% and 77%; hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.31; P = 0.6). There was no difference in generic quality of life, sexual activity scores, or serious adverse events. Conclusion: Large improvements in symptom relief across both groups show treatment for HMB can be successfully initiated with long-term benefit and with only modest need for surgery.

Pain management programmes for non-English-speaking black and minority ethnic groups with long-term or chronic pain

Increasing ethnic diversity in the UK means that there is a growing need for National Health Service care to be delivered to non-English-speaking patients. The aims of the present systematic review were to: (1) better understand the outcomes of chronic pain management programmes (PMPs) for ethnic minority and non-English-speaking patients and (2) explore the perspectives on and experiences of chronic pain for these groups. A systematic review identified 26 papers meeting the inclusion criteria; no papers reported on the outcomes of PMPs delivered in the UK. Of the papers obtained, four reported on PMPs conducted outside the UK; eight reported on ethnic differences in patients seeking support from pain management services in America; and the remaining papers included literature reviews, an experimental pain study, a collaborative enquiry, and a survey of patient and clinician ratings of pain. The findings indicate a lack of research into UK-based pain management for ethnic minorities and non-English-speaking patients. The literature suggests that effective PMPs must be tailored to meet cultural experiences of pain and beliefs about pain management. There is a need for further research to explore these cultural beliefs in non-English-speaking groups in the UK. Culturally sensitive evaluations of interpreted PMPs with long-term follow-up are needed to assess the effectiveness of current provision. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Medicines optimisation for young people with juvenile arthritis and other long-term conditions:system-level barriers to engagement

To explore the views of pharmacy and rheumatology stakeholders about system-related barriers to medicines optimisation activities with young people with long-term conditions. A three-phase consensus-building study comprising (1) focus groups with community and hospital pharmacists; (2) semi-structured telephone interviews with lay and professional adolescent rheumatology stakeholders and pharmacy policymakers, and (3) multidisciplinary discussion groups with community and hospital pharmacists and rheumatology staff. Qualitative verbatim transcripts from phases 1 and 2 were subjected to framework analysis. Themes from phase 1 underpinned a briefing for phase 2 interviewees. Themes from phases 1 and 2 generated elements of good pharmacy practice and current/future pharmacy roles for ranking in phase 3. Results from phase 3 prioritisation and ranking exercises were captured on self-completion data collection forms, entered into an Excel spreadsheet and subjected to descriptive statistical analysis. Institutional ethical approval was given by Aston University Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee. Four focus groups were conducted with 18 pharmacists across England, Scotland and Wales (7 hospital, 10 community and 1 community/public health). Fifteen stakeholders took part in telephone interviews (3 pharmacist commissioners; 2 pharmacist policymakers; 2 pharmacy staff members (1 community and 1 hospital); 4 rheumatologists; 1 specialist nurse, and 3 lay juvenile arthritis advocates). Twenty-five participants took part in three discussion groups in adolescent rheumatology centres across England and Scotland (9 community pharmacists; 4 hospital pharmacists; 6 rheumatologists; 5 specialist nurses, and 1 physiotherapist). In all phases of the study, system-level issues were acknowledged as barriers to more engagement with young people and families. Community pharmacists in the focus groups reported that opportunities for engaging with young people were low if parents collected prescriptions alone, which was agreed by other stakeholders. Moreover, institutional/company prescription collection policies – an activity largely disallowed for a young person under 16 without an accompanying parent - were identified by hospital and community pharmacists as barriers to open discussion and engagement. Few community pharmacists reported using Medicines Use Review (England/Wales) or Chronic Medication Service (Scotland) as a medicines optimisation activity with young people; many were unsure about consent procedures. Despite these limitations, rheumatology stakeholders ranked highly the potential of pharmacists empowering young people with general health care skills, such as repeat prescription ordering. The pharmacy profession lacks vision for its role in the care of young people with long-term conditions. Pharmacists and rheumatology stakeholders identified system-level barriers to more engagement with young people who take medicines regularly. We acknowledge that the modest number of participants may have had a specific interest and thus bias for the topic, but this underscores their frank admission of the challenges. Professional guidance and policy, practice frameworks and institutional/company policies must promote flexibility for pharmacy staff to recognise and empower young people who are able to give consent and take responsibility for medicines activities. This will increase mutual confidence and trust, and foster pharmacy’s role in teaching general health care skills. In this way, pharmacists will be able to build long-term relationships with young people and families.

Medication review of children on long term medications:a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION: Children on long term medication may be under the care of more than one medical team including the patients GP. Children on chronic medication should be supported and their medications reviewed, especially in cases of polypharmacy. Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) were introduced into the pharmacy contract in 2005. The service was designed for community pharmacists to review patients on long term medication. The service specified that MURs were done on patients who can give consent and cannot be conducted with a parent or carer. Hence the service may be inaccessible to paediatric patients. This review aims to find studies that identify medication review services in primary care that cater for children on long term medication. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 6th June 2015 using the keywords, ("Medication" or "review" or "Medication Review" or "Medicines use review" or "Medication use review" or "New Medicine Service") AND ("community pharmacy" OR "community pharmacist" OR "primary care" OR "General practice" OR "GP" OR "community paediatrician" OR "community pediatrician" OR "community nurse"). Bibliographic databases used were AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Health Business Elite. Inclusion criteria were: paediatric specific medication review in primary care, for example by either a GP, community paediatrician, community nurse or community pharmacist. Exclusion criteria were studies of medication review in adults/unclear patient age and secondary care medication reviews. RESULTS: From the 417 articles, 6 relevant articles were found after abstract and full text review. 235 articles were excluded after title and abstract review (11 did not have full text in English); 96 were adult or non-age specified medication review/MUR/New Medicine Service studies; 63 referred to observational, evaluative studies of interventions in adults; 6 were non-paediatric specific systematic reviews and 17 were protocols, commentaries, news, and letters.The 6 relevant articles consisted of 1 literature review (published 2004), 3 research articles and 1 published protocol. The literature review[1] recommended that children's long term medication should be reviewed. The published protocol stated that the NMS minimum age for inclusion in the trial was for children aged over 13 years of age. The four studies were related to psychiatrists reviewing paediatric mental health patients in the USA, a pharmacist using Drug Related Problem to review patients in GP practices in Australia, a UK study based on an information prescription concept by providing children dispensed medications in community pharmacy with signposting them to health information and one GP practice based study observing pharmaceutical care issues in children and adults. CONCLUSION: The results show that there are currently no known studies on medication use reviews specific to children, whereas in adults, published evaluations are available. The terms of the MUR policy restrict children's access to the service and so more studies are necessary to determine whether children could benefit from such access.