New investigations into the stability of Mesna using LC-MS/MS and NMR

Both LC-MS/MS and NMR analyses confirmed the instability of Mesna and its conversion into Dimesna

COPD care delivery pathways in five European Union countries : mapping and health care professionals' perceptions

Background: COPD is among the leading causes of chronic morbidity and mortality in the European Union with an estimated annual economic burden of €25.1 billion. Various care pathways for COPD exist across Europe leading to different responses to similar problems. Determining these differences and the similarities may improve health and the functioning of health services. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare COPD patients’ care pathway in five European Union countries including England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Greece, and Germany and to explore health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceptions about the current pathways. Methods: HCPs were interviewed in two stages using a qualitative, semistructured email interview and a face-to-face semistructured interview. Results: Lack of communication among different health care providers managing COPD and comorbidities was a common feature of the studied care pathways. General practitioners/family doctors are responsible for liaising between different teams/services, except in Greece where this is done through pulmonologists. Ireland and the UK are the only countries with services for patients at home to shorten unnecessary hospital stay. HCPs emphasized lack of communication, limited resources, and poor patient engagement as issues in the current pathways. Furthermore, no specified role exists for pharmacists and informal carers. Conclusion: Service and professional integration between care settings using a unified system targeting COPD and comorbidities is a priority. Better communication between health care providers, establishing a clear role for informal carers, and enhancing patients’ engagement could optimize current care pathways resulting in a better integrated system

Community pharmacy teams’ experiences of general practice-based pharmacists: an exploratory qualitative study

Background: In England, since 2015, there has been a formal drive to integrate pharmacists into general practice as a new healthcare service. Research efforts have offered insights into how general practice-based professionals and patients view the service, however, they took no account of community pharmacy teams’ opinions. There have been anecdotal statements about opposition from community pharmacies to the service, due to fears of losing business. The aim of the current study was to identify the experiences and perceptions of community pharmacy teams regarding pharmacists’ presence in general practice. Methods: The National Health Service Choices website was used to identify community pharmacies within a radius of two miles from eight West London general practices. The search resulted in 104 community pharmacies which were all contacted via telephone. Pharmacy staff who verbally expressed their interest to participate were then provided with the study’s documents. Qualitative, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted inside the pharmacy from which each participant was recruited. Interviews lasted 30 to 45 minutes and were audio-recorded. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts analysed thematically. Results: Forty-eight community pharmacy staff participated. Four themes were discerned: awareness (“I knew that [pharmacists] have already been implemented [in general practice] but I haven’t really followed it…where does the pharmacist role come?”); interactions (“I’m just so pleased that there’s a pharmacist professional in the general practice…because we speak the same language!”); patient care (“if I was a patient knowing that there is a general practitioner and a pharmacist [in general practice], I would…think ‘nothing can go wrong at the moment’”); and funding challenges (“if general practices take on the extra responsibility of stop smoking or flu vaccination campaigns…financially, this would affect this pharmacy”). Conclusions: The current study revealed the perceived impact of general practice-based pharmacists on community pharmacies would be improved communication between pharmacies and practices. Findings will inform policy so that any future framing of pharmacists’ presence in general practice considers the needs of community pharmacies

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre- publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer

Shared decision making and experiences of patients with long-term conditions : has anything changed?

Background Medication problems among patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) are well documented. Measures to support LTC management include: medicine optimisation services by community pharmacists such as the Medicine Use Review (MUR) service in England, implementation of shared decision making (SDM), and the availability of rapid access clinics in primary care. This study aimed to investigate the experience of patients with LTCs about SDM including medication counselling and their awareness of community pharmacy medication review services. Methods A mixed research method with a purposive sampling strategy to recruit patients was used. The quantitative phase involved two surveys, each requiring a sample size of 319. The first was related to SDM experience and the second to medication counselling at discharge. Patients were recruited from medical wards at St. George’s and Croydon University Hospitals.The qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with 18 respiratory patients attending a community rapid access clinic. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis using inductive/deductive approaches was employed. Survey results were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results The response rate for surveys 1 and 2 survey was 79% (n = 357/450) and 68.5% (240/350) respectively. Survey 1 showed that although 70% of patients had changes made to their medications, only 40% were consulted about them and two-thirds (62.2%) wanted to be involved in SDM. In survey 2, 37.5% of patients thought that medication counselling could be improved. Most patients (88.8%) were interested in receiving the MUR service; however 83% were not aware of it. The majority (57.9%) were interested in receiving their discharge medications from community pharmacies. The interviews generated three themes; lack of patient-centered care and SDM, minimal medication counselling provided and lack of awareness about the MUR service. Conclusion Although patients wanted to take part in SDM, yet SDM and medication counselling are not optimally provided. Patients were interested in the MUR service; however there was lack of awareness and referral for this service. The results propose community pharmacy as a new care pathway for medication supply and counselling post discharge. This promotes a change of health policy whereby community-based services are used to enhance the performance of acute hospitals

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre-publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer?Scopu