Variations in chemoprophylaxis for meningococcal disease: a retrospective case note review, analysis of routine prescribing data and questionnaire of general practitioners

BACKGROUND: Invasive meningococcal disease is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in the UK. Administration of chemoprophylaxis to close contacts reduces the risk of a secondary case. However, unnecessary chemoprophylaxis may be associated with adverse reactions, increased antibiotic resistance and removal of organisms, such as Neisseria lactamica, which help to protect against meningococcal disease. Limited evidence exists to suggest that overuse of chemoprophylaxis may occur. This study aimed to evaluate prescribing of chemoprophylaxis for contacts of meningococcal disease by general practitioners and hospital staff. METHODS: Retrospective case note review of cases of meningococcal disease was conducted in one health district from 1st September 1997 to 31st August 1999. Routine hospital and general practitioner prescribing data was searched for chemoprophylactic prescriptions of rifampicin and ciprofloxacin. A questionnaire of general practitioners was undertaken to obtain more detailed information. RESULTS: Prescribing by hospital doctors was in line with recommendations by the Consultant for Communicable Disease Control. General practitioners prescribed 118% more chemoprophylaxis than was recommended. Size of practice and training status did not affect the level of additional prescribing, but there were significant differences by geographical area. The highest levels of prescribing occurred in areas with high disease rates and associated publicity. However, some true close contacts did not appear to receive prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of chemoprophylaxis is affected by a series of patient, doctor and community interactions. High publicity appears to increase demand for prophylaxis. Some true contacts do not receive appropriate chemoprophylaxis and are left at an unnecessarily increased risk

Place, policy and practitioners: on rehabilitation, independence and the therapeutic landscape in the changing geography of care provision to older people in the United Kingdom

A growing body of literature in geography and other social sciences considers the role of place in the provision of healthcare. Authors have focused on various aspects of place and care, with particular interests emerging around the role of the psychological, social and cultural aspects of place in care provision. As healthcare stretches increasingly beyond the traditional four walls of the hospital, so questions of the role of place in practices of care become ever more pertinent. In this paper, we examine the relationship between place and practice in the care and rehabilitation of older people across a range of settings, using qualitative material obtained from interviews and focus groups with nursing, care and rehabilitation staff working in hospitals, clients’ homes and other sites. By analysing their testimony on the characteristics of different settings, the aspects of place which facilitate or inhibit rehabilitation and the ways in which place mediates and is mediated by social interaction, we consider how various dimensions of place relate to the power-inscribed relationships between service users, informal carers and professionals as they negotiate the goals of the rehabilitation process. We seek to demonstrate how the physical, psychological and social meanings of place and the social processes engendered by the rehabilitation encounter interact to produce landscapes that are more or less therapeutic, considering in particular the structuring role of state policy and formal healthcare provision in this dynamic.

A Letter of Consequence: Referral Letters from General Practitioners to Secondary Mental Health Services

The referral letter is a key instrument in moving patients from primary to secondary care services. Consequently, the circumstances in which a referral should be made and its contents have been the subject of clinical guidelines. This article is based on a project that demonstrated that physicians do not adhere to clinical guidelines when referring patients to secondary mental health services. This research supports earlier findings into noncompliance with guidelines by general practitioners (GPs). The authors briefly note possible reasons, which have been the subject of some debate. They also present a content analysis of referral letters to demonstrate the important ways in which they differ from guideline criteria. However, their central argument is that the role of the referral letter in relation to the GP’s repertoire of treatments has not been understood fully. Such understanding implies the need for a reexamination of the support available for GPs.