To determine the prevalence and factors associated with pain-related disabilities among First Nations people living off-reserve in Canada in 2017.

Secondary analysis of the 2017 Aboriginal Peoples Survey, a cross-sectional survey of individuals living in private dwellings throughout Canada.

First Nations people living off-reserve aged 15 years and older (n=9115; weighted n=482 066).

Pain-related disabilities, defined as pain-related activity limitations lasting ≥6 months.

Overall, 22.1% (95% CI 20.9% to 23.4%) of First Nations people living off-reserve reported pain-related disabilities. Prevalence was higher among females (26.1%; 95% CI (24.3% to 28.0%)), increased with age (34.3%; 95% CI (30.3% to 38.5%) among those 45 to 54 years) and was similar across geographic areas (ranging from 21.0%; 95% CI (18.3% to 23.9%) to 22.5%; 95% CI (20.8% to 24.2%)). Pain-related disabilities increased with the number of coexisting disabilities (96.2%; 95% CI (94.3% to 97.5%) among those with >3 disabilities) and was highest among those reporting physical disabilities (ranging from 88.2%; 95% CI (85.6% to 90.4%) for those with mobility disabilities to 91.0%; 95% CI (88.6% to 92.9%) for those with disability related to flexibility). Regression models suggested that individuals with unmet basic needs, housing dissatisfaction, unmet healthcare needs, a history of mental health consultations, part-time or no employment, chronic conditions, residential school attendance or a low sense of belonging were more likely to report pain-related disabilities.

Pain-related disabilities are common among First Nations people living off-reserve, and their aetiology may be multifactorial. Continued collaboration with Indigenous partners is required to contextualise findings and to inform culturally responsive clinical and rehabilitation strategies.

This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.

A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.

Primary care in England.

120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.

Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.

These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.

People living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) admitted to hospital have worse outcomes and report lower satisfaction with care. Understanding how people living with MLTC admitted to the hospital are cared for is a key step in redesigning systems to better meet their needs. This scoping review aimed to identify existing evidence regarding clinical decision-making and care pathways for people with MLTC admitted to the hospital. In addition, we described research methods used to investigate hospital care for people living with MLTC.

A scoping review methodological framework formed the basis of this review. We took a narrative approach to describe our study findings.

A search of Medline, Embase and PsycInfo electronic databases in July 2024 captured relevant literature published from 1996 to 2024.

Studies that explored care pathways and clinical decision-making for people living with MLTC or co-morbidities, studies conducted fully or primarily in secondary or tertiary care published in English Language and with full text available.

Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors. Extracted data included country of origin, aims, study design, any use of an analytical framework or design, type of analyses performed, setting, participant group, number of participants included, health condition(s) studied and main findings. Included studies were categorised as either: studies reviewing existing literature, studies reviewing guidance, studies utilising qualitative methods or ‘other’.

A total of 521 articles were screened, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria. We identified a range of investigative methods. Eight studies used qualitative methods (interviews or focus groups), four were guideline reviews, four were literature reviews and one was classified as ‘other’. Often, researchers choose to combine methods, gathering evidence both empirically and from reviews of existing evidence or guidelines. However, none of the empirical qualitative studies directly or solely investigated clinical decision-making when treating people living with MLTC in acute care and the emergency department. Studies identified complexities in care for people living with MLTC, and some authors attempted to make their own recommendations or draft their own guidance to counter these.

This scoping review highlights the limitations of the current evidence base, which, while diverse in methods, provides sparse insights into clinical decision-making and care pathways for people living with MLTC admitted to hospital. Further research is recommended, including reviews of guidelines and gathering insights from both healthcare professionals and people living with MLTC.