How do patients with cancer pain view community pharmacy services? An interview study

Abstract

Pain experienced by many patients with advanced cancer is often not well controlled and community pharmacists are potentially well placed to provide support. The study objective was to explore the views and experiences of patients with advanced cancer about community pharmacies, their services and attitudes towards having a community pharmacist pain medicines consultation. Purposive sampling of GP clinical information systems was used to recruit patients with advanced cancer, living in the community and receiving opioid analgesics in one area of England, UK between January 2015 and July 2016. Thirteen patients had a semi-structured interview which was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed deductively and inductively using Framework Analysis and incorporating new themes as they emerged. The framework comprised Pain management, Experiences and expectations, Access to care and Communication. All patients reported using one regular community pharmacy citing convenience, service and staff friendliness as influential factors. The idea of a community pharmacy medicines consultation was acceptable to most patients. The idea of telephone consultations was positively received but electronic media such as Skype was not feasible or acceptable for most. Patients perceived a hierarchy of health professionals with specialist palliative care nurses at the top (due to their combined knowledge of their condition and medicines) followed by GPs then pharmacists. Patients receiving specialist palliative care described pain that was better controlled than those who were not. They thought medicines consultations with a pharmacist could be useful for patients before referral for palliative care. There is a need for pain medicines support for patients with advanced cancer, unmet need appears greater for those not under the care of specialist services. Medicines consultations, in principle, are acceptable to patients both in-person and by telephone, the latter was perceived to be of particular benefit to patients less able to leave the house.