Medical Cannabis State and Federal Regulations: Implications for United States Health Care Entities.

Thirty-six states and four territories in the United States have legalized cannabis for medical and/or recreational use. Marijuana, however, continues to be classified as a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substance Act and remains illegal under US federal law. The incongruity between state and federal legislation creates various challenges for stakeholders: patients, medical trainees, providers, and health care institutions. This communication provides an overview of the major policies impacting Cannabis sativa use within the United States, various state and federal regulations, and highlights potential implications for health care institutions moving forward. Existing literature, regulations, and policies on medical marijuana (MMJ) use in health care settings were searched, reviewed, analyzed, and distilled. As a consequence of legislative inconsistencies, there is insufficient clarity and resultant challenges regarding MMJ usage, prescription, possession, education, and research-related policies for health care stakeholders across the United States. Coupled with limited scientific evidence on the clinical efficacy of MMJ, the needs of the patient and the quality of health care delivery may be affected as hospitals balance the competing risks of being legislatively compliant while protecting the rights of patients and health care employees. There is a recognized need to better define acceptable MMJ policies and regulations in health care settings that are evidence-based, legally compliant, and adequately address the needs of both patients and providers. Given the complexity of the legal and policy landscape, there are potential opportunities for improvement, including in medical education and training, research, and usage oversight of MMJ for stakeholders in the United States.

A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in chronic conditions: a review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic conditions are a major source of morbidity, mortality and cost worldwide. Shared decision making is one way to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. Although it has been widely studied, the effect of shared decision making in the context of chronic conditions is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: We will perform a systematic review with the objective of determining the effectiveness of shared decision making interventions for persons diagnosed with chronic conditions. We will search the following databases for relevant articles: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid EBM Reviews CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Ovid PsycInfo. We will also search clinical trial registries and contact experts in the field to identify additional studies. We will include randomized controlled trials studying shared decision making interventions in patients with chronic conditions who are facing an actual decision. Shared decision making interventions will be defined as any intervention aiming to facilitate or improve patient and/or clinician engagement in a decision making process. We will describe all studies and assess their quality. After adjusting for missing data, we will analyze the effect of shared decision making interventions on outcomes in chronic conditions overall and stratified by condition. We will evaluate outcomes according to an importance ranking informed by a variety of stakeholders. We will perform several exploratory analyses including the effect of author contact on the estimates of effect. DISCUSSION: We anticipate that this systematic review may have some limitations such as heterogeneity and imprecision; however, the results will contribute to improving the quality of care for individuals with chronic conditions and facilitate a process that allows decision making that is most consistent with their own values and preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42013005784.