Assessment of education in a community hospital on healthcare providers' knowledge of and attitudes toward medical marijuana.

INTRODUCTION: Although medical marijuana usage continues to become more socially acceptable and is increasingly regarded as a legitimate treatment alternative for certain medical conditions such as cancer and epilepsy, stigma remains. METHODS: This study examined whether offering an educational session addressing several key aspects of medical marijuana (e.g., pharmacology, legality) to healthcare providers in a community hospital setting improved knowledge about and/or altered attitudes toward marijuana use. This information was collected through administration of pre- and post-education session surveys. Multiple choice questions were utilized to assess knowledge of marijuana pharmacotherapy, pharmacodynamic interactions, and regulations, whereas descriptive analyses via Likert-scale questions determined attitudes toward medical marijuana. A secondary outcome entailed analysis of drug interactions with marijuana users via retrospective chart review. RESULTS: A total of 43 healthcare providers participated in the study. There were statistically significant increases in healthcare provider knowledge post-education session across multiple occupations (physician, P < .01; nurse, P < .001; pharmacist, P < .01; and nurse technician, P < .05). A total of 72 patients (83%) who self-reported marijuana use for medical or recreational purposes had a potential drug-drug interaction with marijuana. CONCLUSIONS: As both medical and recreational marijuana continue to become legalized across the United States, formal education surrounding marijuana use and laws becomes increasingly important for healthcare providers and can be highly effective in preventing misinformation.

Oncology Fellows' Clinical Discussions, Perceived Knowledge, and Formal Training Regarding Medical Cannabis Use: A National Survey Study.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that patients with cancer frequently use cannabis with medicinal intent and desire clinical guidance from providers. We aimed to determine whether oncology training adequately prepares fellows to discuss medical cannabis. METHODS: A national survey study was conducted from January to March 2021. A questionnaire assessing oncology fellows' practices regarding cannabis recommendations in cancer care and their knowledge of its effectiveness and risks compared with conventional care for cancer-related symptoms was developed and sent to 155 US-based oncology training programs to distribute to trainees. RESULTS: Forty programs from 25 states participated; of the 462 trainees across these programs, 189 responded (response rate of 40%). Of the participants, 52% were female; 52% were White, 33% Asian, and 5% Hispanic. Fifty-seven percent reported that they discussed medical cannabis with more than five patients in the preceding year; however, only 13% felt sufficiently informed to issue cannabis-related clinical recommendations. Twenty-four percent reported having received formal training regarding medical cannabis. Oncology fellows who reported having received prior training in medical cannabis were significantly more likely to discuss cannabis with patients (risk ratio: 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75; P = .002) and feel sufficiently informed to discuss cannabis recommendations (risk ratio: 5.06; 95% CI, 2.33 to 10.99; P < .001). Many viewed the botanical as a useful adjunctive therapy that was at least as effective as conventional treatments for anorexia/cachexia (72%), nausea/vomiting (45%), and pain (41%). CONCLUSION: Most oncology trainees not only reported engaging in discussions regarding medical cannabis with patients but also considered themselves insufficiently informed to make cannabis-related clinical recommendations. The discrepancy between the frequency of cannabis inquiries/discussions at the patient level and comfort/knowledge at the trainee provider level represents an unmet curricular need with implications for both graduate medical education and patient care.

Medical cannabis in the UK: From principle to practice.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, medical cannabis was approved in November 2018, leading many patients to believe that the medicine would now be available on the NHS. Yet, to date, there have been only 12 NHS prescriptions and less than 60 prescriptions in total. In marked contrast, a recent patient survey by the Centre for Medical Cannabis (Couch, 2020) found 1.4 m people are using illicit cannabis for medical problems. AIMS: Such a mismatch between demand and supply is rare in medicine. This article outlines some of the current controversies about medical cannabis that underpin this disparity, beginning by contrasting current medical evidence from research studies with patient-reported outcomes. OUTCOMES: Although definite scientific evidence is scarce for most conditions, there is significant patient demand for access to medical cannabis. This disparity poses a challenge for prescribers, and there are many concerns of physicians when deciding if, and how, to prescribe medical cannabis which still need to be addressed. Potential solutions are outlined as to how the medical profession and regulators could respond to the strong demand from patients and families for access to medical cannabis to treat chronic illnesses when there is often a limited scientific evidence base on whether and how to use it in many of these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to maximise both clinical research and patient benefit, in a safe, cautious and ethical manner, so that those patients for whom cannabis is shown to be effective can access it. We hope our discussion and outlines for future progress offer a contribution to this process.

Concerns of Patients With Cancer on Accessing Cannabis Products in a State With Restrictive Medical Marijuana Laws: A Survey Study.

PURPOSE: Several states, particularly in the Southeast, have restrictive medical marijuana laws that permit qualified patients to use specific cannabis products. The majority of these states, however, do not provide avenues for accessing cannabis products such as in-state dispensaries. METHODS: We conducted a survey of patients registered for medical marijuana (low tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] oil cards) in an ambulatory palliative care practice in Georgia (one of the states with restrictive medical marijuana laws). RESULTS: We had a total of 101 responses. Among our sample of patients who use cannabis as part of a state-approved low THC oil program, 56% were male and 64% were older than age 50 years. Advanced cancer was the most common reason (76%) for granting the patients access to a low THC oil card. Although patients reported cannabis products as being extremely helpful for reducing pain, they expressed considerable concerns about the legality issues (64%) and ability to obtain THC (68%). Several respondents were using unapproved formulations of cannabis products. For 48% of the patients, their physician was the source of information regarding marijuana-related products. Furthermore, they believed that their health care providers and family members were supportive of their use of cannabis (62% and 79%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients on Georgia's medical marijuana program are most concerned about the legality of the product and their ability to obtain marijuana-related products. Therefore, we recommend that states with medical marijuana laws should provide safe and reliable access to cannabis products for qualifying patients.