ObjectivesSafe pharmaceutical care (PC) requires an interprofessional team approach, involving physicians, nurses and pharmacists. Nurses’ roles however, are not always explicit and clear, complicating interprofessional collaboration. The aim of this study is to describe nurses’ practice and interprofessional collaboration in PC, from the viewpoint of nurses, physicians and pharmacists.DesignA cross-sectional survey.SettingThe study was conducted in 17 European countries, each with their own health systems.ParticipantsPharmacists, physicians and nurses with an active role in PC were surveyed.Main outcome measuresNurses’ involvement in PC, experiences of interprofessional collaboration and communication and views on nurses’ competences.ResultsA total of 4888 nurses, 974 physicians and 857 pharmacists from 17 European countries responded. Providing patient education and information (PEI), monitoring medicines adherence (MMA), monitoring adverse/therapeutic effects (ME) and prescribing medicines were considered integral to nursing practice by 78%, 73%, 69% and 15% of nurses, respectively. Most respondents were convinced that quality of PC would be improved by increasing nurses’ involvement in ME (95%), MMA (95%), PEI (91%) and prescribing (53%). Mean scores for the reported quality of collaboration between nurses and physicians, collaboration between nurses and pharmacists and interprofessional communication were respectively <7/10, ≤4/10, <6/10 for all four aspects of PC.ConclusionsME, MMA, PEI and prescribing are part of nurses’ activities, and most healthcare professionals felt their involvement should be extended. Collaboration between nurses and physicians on PC is limited and between nurses and pharmacists even more.

Women who have been treated for breast cancer may experience vulvo-vaginal atrophy (VVA)/genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). This is a progressive condition and will not improve without treatment. Whilst vaginal oestrogen is the most effective treatment for GSM, many breast cancer survivors and clinicians remain reluctant to use it. Laser therapy is emerging as an alternative treatment for this condition but there is little evidence available as to its value in this setting.We undertook a systematic literature review to identify available evidence for the use of laser therapy for VVA in women with breast cancer. There are a number of small studies which suggest an improvement in vaginal health in this group. However, these are all small, non-randomised studies and there are a number of key questions which need to be answered before this treatment can be implemented into practice. BackgroundVulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), which is now known as genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), results due to the natural hypo-oestrogenic state that occurs during and following menopause. Approximately 50% of post-menopausal women will suffer from GSM (reported incidence is between 39% and 62%) [20]. However, up to 75% of women surviving breast cancer are expected to experience GSM [27], because they are either post-menopausal at diagnosis or they have become menopausal as a result of endocrine or chemotherapy. Achieving very low oestrogen levels is the goal of endocrine sensitive breast cancer treatment, which will exacerbate menopausal problems. It is estimated that there are over 500,000 breast cancer survivors living in the UK, with the majority of women surviving for over 20 years. GSM is progressive in nature; hence, it will only deteriorate with time and will not improve without intervention. This can have a significant effect on the quality of life (QoL) [7].The vaginal mucosa prior to menopause is composed of a thick stratified squamous epithelium [8] which is hormone-responsive, relying primarily on oestrogen to maintain Research ecancer 2019, 13:988; www.ecancer.org; DOI: https://doi.

Aim To explore UK professionals’ interpretations of medicines optimization and expansion of nurses’ roles. Design This mixed‐methods study sought professionals’ views on nurses’ involvement, competency and engagement in monitoring patients for adverse effects of medicines, monitoring adherence, prescribing and patient education. Method An online survey and interviews were undertaken with nurses, doctors and pharmacists in Wales and England, May 2018 to July 2019. Results In all, 220 nurses, 17 doctors and 62 pharmacists responded to the online survey, and 24 professionals were interviewed. Nurses were divided over extending their roles, with 123/220 (55.9%) wishing to extend roles in monitoring patients for possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs), 111/220 (50.5%) in adherence monitoring, 121/220 (55.0%) in prescribing and 122/220 (55.4%) in patient education. The best‐qualified nurses were the most willing to increase involvement in monitoring patients for ADRs (aOR 13.00, 1.56–108.01). Interviews revealed that both nurses and doctors assumed the other profession was undertaking this monitoring. Respondents agreed that increasing nurses’ involvement in medicines optimization would improve patient care, but expressed reservations about nurses’ competencies. Collaboration between nurses and doctors was suboptimal (rated 7/10 at best) and between nurses and pharmacists even more so (6/10 at best). Conclusion Juxtaposition of datasets identified problems with medicines optimization: although most respondents agreed that increasing nurses’ involvement would positively impact practice, their educational preparation was a barrier. Only ~50% of nurses were willing to expand their roles to fill the hiatus in care identified and ensure that at least one profession was taking responsibility for ADR monitoring. Impact To improve multiprofessional team working and promote patient safety, nurse leaders should ensure patients are monitored for possible ADRs by at least one profession. Initiatives expanding nurses’ roles in medicines optimization and prescribing might be best targeted towards the more educated nurses, who have multidisciplinary support.

(1) Aims: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) particularly affect older people prescribed multiple medicines. The professional bodies of nursing, medicine and pharmacy have issued guidelines on identification and management of ADRs; however, ADRs continue to account for ~10% unplanned hospital admissions in the UK. Current methods of ADR identification and management could be improved by multidisciplinary collaboration involving nurses. The aim of this study is to examine the impact of implementing the nurse-led Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRe) Profile in UK primary care. (2) Design: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) followed by qualitative interviews in a sequential mixed-methods study. (3) Methods: For the cluster RCT, 60 patients aged ≥65 prescribed ≥5 regular medicines for long-term conditions will be recruited, 10 in each of 6 general practices. The intervention arm (n = 30) will complete the ADRe Profile, whilst the control participants (n = 30) continue to receive usual, standard care. Primary outcomes will include clinical impact on patients, benefit and prescription changes. On completion of the RCT, participants will be invited to semi-structured qualitative interviews, to evaluate the impact of the ADRe Profile from stakeholders’ perspectives, and to describe the contextual factors relevant to ADRe implementation. (4) Results: The findings of this study will evaluate the effectiveness of the ADRe Profile in identifying and resolving potential ADRs in primary care. Trial registration: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT04663360, date of registration—29 November 2021 (date of initial registration: 26 November 2020), protocol version 2, dated 8 January 2021.