Attitudes and practices of general practitioners in the diagnosis and management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To assess understanding of, and actual and potential roles in management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among GPs. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of Queensland GPs selected randomly from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners directory of members was carried out. Main outcome measures were knowledge levels of ADHD, current management practices, referral patterns and self-perceived information and training needs. Results: Three hundred and ninety-nine GPs returned a completed questionnaire (response rate 76%). Roles identified by GPs were: the provisional diagnosis of ADHD and referral to specialist services for confirmation of the diagnosis and initiation of management; assistance with monitoring progress once a management plan was in place; education of the child and their family regarding the disorder; and liaison with the school where necessary. Perceived barriers to increased involvement of GPs were: time and resource constraints of general practice; concerns regarding abuse and addiction liability of prescription stimulants; complex diagnostic issues associated with childhood behavioural problems; and lack of training and education regarding ADHD. Conclusions: General practitioners identify a role for themselves in ADHD care that is largely supportive in nature and involves close liaison with specialist services.

General practitioner attitudes to case conferences: how can we increase participation and effectiveness?

Objectives: To identify general practitioners' views on the barriers to using case conferencing (as outlined in the Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS) Enhanced Primary Care package) and to develop a set of principles to encourage greater GP participation in case conferences. Design: Qualitative study, involving semistructured questions administered to focus groups of GPs, conducted between April and July 2001 as part of a broader study of case coordination in palliative care. Participants: 29 GPs from urban, regional, and rural areas of Queensland. Principal findings: Many of the GPs' work practices militated against participation in traditionally structured case conferences. GPs thought the range of MBS item numbers should be expanded to cover alternative methods of liaison (eg, phone consultations with other service providers). The onerous bureaucratic processes required to claim reimbursement were an additional disincentive. Conclusions: GPs would probably be more likely to participate in case conferences if they were initiated by specialist services and arranged more flexibly to suit GP work schedules.

Practices and attitudes to derivatives use in Australian commonwealth organisations

Little is known about risk management in the public sector This study reports on a survey of senior officers in Australian Commonwealth companies and statutory authorities concerning their practice and attitudes towards the use of derivative instruments for risk management. Using a variety of tests, the most important issue identified by respondents concerning the use of derivatives is for budgeting purposes. Of note, respondents rank commonly cited reasons advanced in the private sector such as reduced bankruptcy costs and taxation, as being relatively unimportant, which is consistent with arguments advanced in the paper The results also indicate that there are significant differences in the level of importance in some issues regarding derivatives use across public sector organisations, particularly those differentiated by a documented risk management plan. The study also documents for the first time the extent of derivatives use in the Australian public sector.

Clinicians' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines

To the Editor: In their systematic review of clinicians' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines, Farquhar et al1 found that, although healthcare providers reported high satisfaction with guidelines, a significant number also expressed concerns about their practicality, their role in cost-cutting and their potential for increasing litigation. The review, however, did not address other potentially significant concerns of clinicians regarding the perceived validity of guidelines and the influence of external agencies (such as the pharmaceutical industry) on treatment recommendations.