Simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical practice guideline for a simplified approach to medical cannabinoid use in primary care; the focus was on primary care application, with a strong emphasis on best available evidence and a promotion of shared, informed decision making. METHODS: The Evidence Review Group performed a detailed systematic review of 4 clinical areas with the best evidence around cannabinoids: pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and adverse events. Nine health professionals (2 generalist family physicians, 2 pain management-focused family physicians, 1 inner-city family physician, 1 neurologist, 1 oncologist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 pharmacist) and a patient representative comprised the Prescribing Guideline Committee (PGC), along with 2 nonvoting members (pharmacist project managers). Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, location, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative through content distribution, evidence review, and telephone and online meetings. The PGC directed the Evidence Review Group to address and provide evidence for additional questions as needed. The key recommendations were derived through consensus of the PGC. The guideline was drafted, refined, and distributed to a group of clinicians and patients for feedback, then refined again and finalized by the PGC. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations include limiting medical cannabinoid use in general, but also outline potential restricted use in a small subset of medical conditions for which there is some evidence (neuropathic pain, palliative and end-of-life pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury). Other important considerations regarding prescribing are reviewed in detail, and content is offered to support shared, informed decision making. CONCLUSION: This simplified medical cannabinoid prescribing guideline provides practical recommendations for the use of medical cannabinoids in primary care. All recommendations are intended to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients.

Guideline for primary care management of headache in adults.

OBJECTIVE: To increase the use of evidence-informed approaches to diagnosis, investigation, and treatment of headache for patients in primary care. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A comprehensive search was conducted for relevant guidelines and systematic reviews published between January 2000 and May 2011. The guidelines were critically appraised using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool, and the 6 highest-quality guidelines were used as seed guidelines for the guideline adaptation process. MAIN MESSAGE: A multidisciplinary guideline development group of primary care providers and other specialists crafted 91 specific recommendations using a consensus process. The recommendations cover diagnosis, investigation, and management of migraine, tension-type, medication-overuse, and cluster headache. CONCLUSION: A clinical practice guideline for the Canadian health care context was created using a guideline adaptation process to assist multidisciplinary primary care practitioners in providing evidence-informed care for patients with headache.

Lignes directrices simplifiées en matière de prescription de cannabinoïdes médicaux en soins de première ligne.

OBJECTIF: Élaborer des lignes directrices de pratique clinique visant à simplifier l'approche à l'emploi de cannabinoïdes à des fins médicales en soins de première ligne; le projet visait l'application en soins de première ligne, en insistant fortement sur les meilleures données probantes disponibles, et la promotion de la prise de décision éclairée et partagée. MÉTHODES: Le Groupe d'examen des données a effectué une revue systématique détaillée de 4 domaines cliniques dotés des meilleures données probantes en matière de cannabinoïdes : douleur, nausées et vomissements, spasticité et événements indésirables. Neuf professionnels de la santé (2 omnipraticiens, 2 médecins de famille spécialisés en gestion de la douleur, 1 médecin de famille en milieu urbain, 1 neurologue, 1 oncologue, 1 infirmière praticienne et 1 pharmacien) et une représentante de patients composaient le Comité des lignes directrices en matière de prescription (CLDP), de même que 2 membres sans droit de vote (pharmaciens gestionnaires de projet). Les membres ont été sélectionnés en fonction de leur profession, et de leur contexte et de leur lieu de pratique, de même qu'en fonction de l'absence d'un conflit d'intérêts de nature financière. Les lignes directrices sont le fruit d'un processus itératif incluant la distribution de contenu, l'examen minutieux des données probantes, et des rencontres téléphoniques et en ligne. Le CLDP a confié au Groupe d'examen des données la responsabilité de répondre aux questions additionnelles et de fournir des données probantes, au besoin. Les principales recommandations découlent d'un consensus au sein du CLDP. Les lignes directrices ont été rédigées, peaufinées et distribuées à un groupe de cliniciens et de patients aux fins de commentaires, puis ont été peaufinées à nouveau et finalisées par le CLDP. RECOMMANDATIONS: Les recommandations consistent à limiter la consommation générale de cannabinoïdes médicaux, mais elles décrivent aussi l'emploi restreint potentiel dans un petit sous-groupe de conditions de santé pour lesquelles des données probantes existent (douleur neuropathique, douleur en soins palliatifs et en fin de vie, nausées et vomissements induits par la chimiothérapie, et spasticité causée par la sclérose en plaques ou une lésion de la moelle épinière). L'article examine en détail d'autres points importants en matière de prescription, et offre du contenu étayant la prise de décision éclairée et partagée. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices simplifiées en matière de prescription de cannabinoïdes médicaux offrent des recommandations pratiques quant à l'emploi de cannabinoïdes en soins de première ligne. Toutes les recommandations visent à contribuer à la prise de décision conjointement avec le patient et non à la dicter.

Physician-to-physician telephone consultations for chronic pain patients: A pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Patients referred to an interdisciplinary chronic pain service were randomly assigned to either receive usual care by the primary care physician, or to have their case discussed in a telephone consultation between a pain specialist and the referring primary care physician. Patients completed a numerical rating scale for pain, the Pain Disability Index and the Short Form-36 on referral, as well as three and six months later. Primary care physicians completed a brief survey to assess their impressions of the telephone consultation. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomly assigned to either the usual care group or the standard telephone consultation group, and 67 completed the study protocol. Patients were comparable on baseline pain and demographic characteristics. No differences were found between the groups at six months after referral in regard to pain, disability or quality of life measures. Eighty percent of primary care physicians indicated that they learned new patient care strategies from the telephone consultation, and 97% reported that the consultation answered their questions and helped in the care of their patient. DISCUSSION: Most primary care physicians reported that a telephone consultation with a pain specialist answered their questions, improved their patients' care and resulted in new learning. Differences in patient status compared with a usual care control group were not detectable at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While telephone consultations are clearly an acceptable strategy for knowledge translation, additional strategies may be required to actually impact patient outcomes.