Prescribing practices of Australian dispensing doctors

Background: In response to health workforce shortages policymakers have considered expanding the roles that a health professional may perform. A more traditional combination of health professional roles is that of a dispensing doctor (DD) who routinely prescribes and dispenses pharmaceuticals. A systematic review conducted on mainly overseas DDs’ practices found that DDs tended to prescribe more items per patients, less often generically, and showed poorer adherence to best practice. Convenience for patients was cited by both patients and DDs as the main reason for dispensing. In Australia, rural doctors are allowed to dispense Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) subsidised pharmaceutical benefits if there is no reasonable pharmacy coverage. Little was known about the practices of these Australian DDs. Objectives: To examine the PBS prescribing patterns of dispensing with matched non-dispensing doctors and identify factors that influence prescribing behaviour. Method: A sequential explanatory (QUAN-->qual) mixed methodology was utilised. Firstly, rurality-matched DDs’ and non-DDs’ PBS data for fiscal years 2005-7 were analysed against criteria distilled from a systematic review and stakeholder consultations. Secondly, structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of DDs to examine the quantitative findings. Key findings: DDs prescribed significantly fewer PBS prescriptions per patients but used Regulation 24 significantly more than non-DDs. Regulation 24 biased the prescribing data. DDs prescribed proportionally more penicillin type antibiotics, adrenergic inhalants and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories as compared to non-DDs. Reasons offered by DD-respondents highlighted that prescribing was influenced by an awareness of cost to the patients, peer pressure and confidential prescriber feedback provided on a regular basis. Implications: This innovative census study does not support international data that DDs are less judicious in their prescribing. There is some evidence that DDs might reduce health inequity between rural and urban Australian, and that the DD health model is valuable to patients in isolated communities.

A systematic review of the literature comparing the practices of dispensing and non-dispensing doctors

Objectives: Some doctors perform the dual roles of prescribing and dispensing pharmaceuticals. The dispensing doctors (DDs) role may give rise to prescribing behaviours that vary from those of non-DDs. The aim of this review was to systematically and comparatively appraise the research evidence related to the practices of DDs. Methods: A systematic search of bibliographic databases and reference lists from selected papers were the sources of the data. Inclusion criteria were papers published in English, between 1970 and 2008 that provided quantitative data comparing the practices of DDs and non-DDs. At least two of the authors abstracted data from all eligible papers using a purpose-made data extraction form. Results: Twenty-one papers were included in this review. Evidence indicated that DDs prescribed more pharmaceutical items and less often generically than non-DDs. There was limited evidence to suggest that DDs prescribed less judiciously and were associated with poor dispensing standards. Patient convenience and access to pharmaceuticals were main reasons for doctors to dispense. Conclusion: DDs can fill an important gap in the provision of pharmaceuticals for their patients especially where health workforce shortages exist. There was evidence the dispensing role influenced prescribing. Patient convenience should be balanced against scarce medical resources, being utilised for dispensing.

Australian dispensing doctors' prescribing : quantitative and qualitative analysis

Objective: To evaluate the prescribing practices of Australian dispensing doctors (DDs) and to explore their interpretations of the findings. Design, participants and setting: Sequential explanatory mixed methods. The quantitative phase comprised analysis of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) claims data of DDs and non-DDs, 1 July 2005 30 June 2007. The qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with DDs in rural and remote general practice across Australian states, August 2009 February 2010. Main outcome measures: The number of PBS prescriptions per 1000 patients and use of Regulation 24 of the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations 1960 (r. 24); DDs' interpretation of the findings. Results: 72 DDs' and 1080 non-DDs' PBS claims data were analysed quantitatively. DDs issued fewer prescriptions per 1000 patients (9452 v 15057; P = 0.003), even with a similar proportion of concessional patients and patients aged >65 years in their populations. DDs issued significantly more r. 24 prescriptions per 1000 prescriptions than non-DDs (314 v 67; P=0.008). Interviews with 22 DDs explained that the fewer prescriptions were due to perceived expectation from their peers regarding prescribing norms and the need to generate less administrative paperwork in small practices. Conclusions: Contrary to overseas findings, we found no evidence that Australian DDs overprescribed because of their additional dispensing role. MJA 2011; 195: 172-175

Honesty about adverse event : more honoured in the breach than in the observance?

Part of the chapter: "Sale of Sperm, Health Records, Minimally Conscious States, and Duties of Candour" Although ethical obligations and good medical practice guidelines clearly contemplate open disclosure, there is a dearth of authority as to the nature and extent of a legal duty on Australian doctors to disclose adverse events to patients.

Honesty about adverse events - more honoured in the breach than in the observance

The medical board of Australia Code of conduct reminds doctors that" "When adverse events occur, you have a responsibility to be open and honest in your communication with your patient, to review what has occurred and to report appropriately." More honoured in the breach rather than the observence may or may not be correct. Faced with the English concerns and the Netherlands research, an evidence based assessment of compliance with the ethical duty to disclose adverse events is warranted.

Swine flu, doctors and pandemics : Is there a duty to treat during a pandemic?

The swine influenza (H1N1) outbreak in 2009 highlighted the ethical and legal pressures facing general practitioners and health workers in emergency departments in determining the nature and limits of their obligations to their patients and the public. Health workers require guidance on the multiple, overlapping, and at times conflicting legal and ethical duties owed to patients and prospective patients, employers and fellow health workers, and their families. Existing sources of advice on these issues in Australia, by way of statements of medical ethics and other sources of advice, are shown to be in need of further amplification if health workers are to be provided with the certainty and guidance required. Given the complexity of the issues, Australia would therefore benefit from more extensive consultation with the variety of stakeholders involved in these questions if pandemic plans are to smoothly deal with future crises in an ethically and legally sound manner.

Less popular but more democratic? Corrie, Clarkson and the dancing Cru

The central cultural experience of modernity has been change, both the ‘creative destruction’ of existing structures, and the growth, often exponential, of new knowledge. During the twentieth century, the central cultural platform for the collective experience of modernising societies changed too, from page and stage to the screen – from publishing, the press and radio to cinema, television and latterly computer screens. Despite the successive dominance of new media, none has lasted long at the top. The pattern for each was to give way to a successor platform in popularity, but to continue as part of an increasingly crowded media menu. Modern media are supplemented not supplanted by their successors.