SummaryIt is paramount that any child or adolescent with a suspected disorder of sex development (DSD) is assessed by an experienced clinician with adequate knowledge about the range of conditions associated with DSD. If there is any doubt, the case should be discussed with the regional DSD team. In most cases, particularly in the case of the newborn, the paediatric endocrinologist within the regional team acts commonly as the first point of contact. This clinician should be part of a multidisciplinary team experienced in management of DSD and should ensure that the affected person and parents have access to specialist psychological support and that their information needs are comprehensively addressed. The underlying pathophysiology of DSD and the strengths and weaknesses of the tests that can be performed should be discussed with the parents and affected young person and tests undertaken in a timely fashion. Finally, in the field of rare conditions, it is imperative that the clinician shares the experience with others through national and international clinical and research collaboration.

It is paramount that any child or adolescent with a suspected disorder of sex development (DSD) is assessed by an experienced clinician with adequate knowledge about the range of conditions associated with DSD. If there is any doubt, the case should be discussed with the regional team. In most cases, particularly in the case of the newborn, the paediatric endocrinologist within the regional DSD team acts as the first point of contact. The underlying pathophysiology of DSD and the strengths and weaknesses of the tests that can be performed should be discussed with the parents and affected young person and tests undertaken in a timely fashion. This clinician should be part of a multidisciplinary team experienced in management of DSD and should ensure that the affected person and parents are as fully informed as possible and have access to specialist psychological support. Finally, in the field of rare conditions, it is imperative that the clinician shares the experience with others through national and international clinical and research collaboration.

Background Patients with advanced cancer commonly experience pain and it is least controlled in community settings. Community pharmacists in the UK already offer medicines optimisation consultations although not for this patient group. Objective To determine whether medicines consultations for patients with advanced cancer pain are feasible and acceptable. Setting Community-dwelling patients with advanced cancer pain were recruited from primary, secondary and tertiary care using purposive sampling in one UK city. Methods One face-to-face or two telephone delivered medicines optimisation consultations by pharmacists were tested. These were based on services currently delivered in UK community pharmacies. Feedback was obtained from patients and healthcare professionals involved to assess feasibility and acceptability. Main outcome measure Recruitment, acceptability and drug related problems. Results Twenty-three patients, (range 33–88 years) were recruited, 19 completed consultation(s) of whom 17 were receiving palliative care services. Five received face-to-face consultations and 14 by telephone during which 47 drug related problems were identified from 33 consultations (mean 2.5). Advice was provided for 34 drug related problems in 17 patients and referral to other healthcare professionals for 13 in 8 patients, 2 patients had none. Eleven patients returned questionnaires of which 8 (73%) would recommend the consultations to others. Conclusion The consultations were feasible as patients were recruited, retained, consultations delivered, and data collected. Patients found the 20–30 min intervention acceptable, found a self-perceived increase in medicines knowledge and most would recommend it to others. Community pharmacists were willing to carry out these services however they had confidence issues in accessing working knowledge. Most drug related problems were resolved by the pharmacists and even among patients receiving palliative care services there were still issues concerning analgesic management. Pharmacist-conducted medicines consultations demonstrate potential which now needs to be evaluated within a larger study in the future.

Background: Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required. Design: A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice. Data sources: National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for ‘cancer’ AND ‘pain’ in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made. Results: A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only. Conclusion: Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

The review found no evidence to support any specific intervention. Key uncertainties need to be identified and addressed. Adequately powered, methodologically rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to provide a secure evidence base for psychological intervention techniques in participants with cleft lip and/or palate and their parents.