Search

Global prevalence rates for transgender individuals vary with estimates ranging from 0.3% to 1%, translating to a potential global population of 24.3 million to 81 million. It is estimated that one in two people will develop cancer in their lifetime. Gender‐affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) is a common medical intervention for transgender and non‐binary individuals. GAHT requires careful consideration for concurrent medical care due to potential drug interactions and physiological changes. A multi‐disciplinary team with expertise in transgender health, oncology and pharmacy met to develop a document summarizing current knowledge on the topic for practical use. The team included trans and non‐binary authors who shaped the document's language and focus. The document gives a status update on the current understanding of GAHT and how this may intersect with the safe prescribing of systemic anti‐cancer therapies (SACT). The document underwent multiple review stages including internal review, review by the British Oncology Pharmacy Association (BOPA) EDI Subcommittee and, finally, BOPA Executive Committee review and final approval. Key recommendations of this document include the use of inclusive and effective communication, vigilant monitoring of kidney function and cardiovascular health, and considerations for hormone receptor‐positive cancers. The document also recognizes the multidisciplinary nature of transgender healthcare and where this relates to social prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has revolutionized and, in some ways, enhanced and encouraged the use of technology. Preventing contagion, especially for cancer patients, pushed pharmacy professionals (PPs) to conduct virtual routine consultations for reviewing medications aiming to provide immediate care without delays in treatments. This was proven to be a convenient alternative to face-to-face consultations as demonstrated by Marchese et al.1 Objectives: The objectives of this research were to evaluate the usage, advantages and disadvantages of remote consultations (RC) and the improvements needed to encourage its future usage by PP. Method: This cross-sectional study involved PP based in primary and secondary care who used RC. Favourable research ethical approval was received by the Pharmacy department of Kingston University London on 29 January 2022. Ninety-one participants were successfully recruited from UK pharmacy associations, mostly from the British Oncology Pharmacy Association, and were asked to complete a 10-min survey on Microsoft forms. Quantitative and qualitative data analyses were conducted through SPSS and NVivo software. Results: 79% of PP used RC, of which 57% used only telephone and 43% a mix of telephone and video consultations. The most undertaken services were counselling, prescribing, responding to symptoms, and monitoring. In our study participants reported that RC can create social inequalities for people that cannot access or use technology or people with hearing and speaking difficulties. Furthermore, they stated that better IT infrastructure was needed to support RC: larger screens, smarter and simpler technology, connected infrastructure to bring patients face to face in a timely manner, more IT support to patients, video calling software that is fit for purpose, dedicated spaces to conduct RC and the provision of electronic devices to staff and patients if needed. 78% were satisfied with RC and the majority of PP are inclined on using this technology in the future. Discussion: This research is the first in the United Kingdom to examine the perspective and experience of PP with RC. Previous studies focused on the perspective of pharmacists rather than the pharmacy staff as a whole, while others were published prior to the COVID-19 out-break and thus are anachronistic with respect to our objectives and the recent pandemic. The advantages and disadvantages of RC found in our study are not dissimilar to those of previous studies in aspects such as cost and time effectiveness, limitations to physical assessment,2 communication errors.3 Data regarding social inequalities and better IT infrastructure should be further analysed to identify how these challenges can be overcome to provide a better quality of care. This study has three main limitations: 1. A low number of participants due to time and resources available. 2. The disparity between hospital pharmacists compared to the rest of pharmacy professionals. 3. The author’s lack of experience manifests naiveté in the design of some questions. Conclusion: The experience with RC was positive and undoubtedly necessary, bringing benefits and challenges. Our study represents a starting point for exploring how to improve IT infrastructures and social inequalities to enhance patients’ care with RC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]