Are the NICE guidelines for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder being used in primary care?

This study aims to: 1) assess the proportion of General Practioners (GPs) who are aware of or who have read the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE; 2005a) guidelines for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), 2) compare this with the proportion of other mental health disorders found by previous research and 3) establish the prevalence of OCD in primary care. Questionnaires were sent to all GPs (n = 795) and practice managers (n = 157) in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, South East England. These contained 19 questions and took 5 min to complete. After the first set of responses, larger practices were visited and telephoned to encourage further responses. The response rates were 10.1% from GPs and 19.1% from practice managers. In all, 48.7% of the GPs were aware of the NICE guidelines for OCD and 30.3% reported that they had read them – higher than for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, but lower than for depression. Of registered patients, 0.2% were diagnosed with OCD, lower than the 1.1% found in epidemiological studies.

Investigating the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in general practice: the PRACtICe Study

Aim: To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing errors in general practice; to explore the causes, and to identify defences against error. Methods: 1) Systematic reviews; 2) Retrospective review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12 month period to a 2% sample of patients from 15 general practices in England; 3) Interviews with 34 prescribers regarding 70 potential errors; 15 root cause analyses, and six focus groups involving 46 primary health care team members Results: The study involved examination of 6,048 unique prescription items for 1,777 patients. Prescribing or monitoring errors were detected for one in eight patients, involving around one in 20 of all prescription items. The vast majority of the errors were of mild to moderate severity, with one in 550 items being associated with a severe error. The following factors were associated with increased risk of prescribing or monitoring errors: male gender, age less than 15 years or greater than 64 years, number of unique medication items prescribed, and being prescribed preparations in the following therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, infections, malignant disease and immunosuppression, musculoskeletal, eye, ENT and skin. Prescribing or monitoring errors were not associated with the grade of GP or whether prescriptions were issued as acute or repeat items. A wide range of underlying causes of error were identified relating to the prescriber, patient, the team, the working environment, the task, the computer system and the primary/secondary care interface. Many defences against error were also identified, including strategies employed by individual prescribers and primary care teams, and making best use of health information technology. Conclusion: Prescribing errors in general practices are common, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Strategies for reducing the prevalence of error should focus on GP training, continuing professional development for GPs, clinical governance, effective use of clinical computer systems, and improving safety systems within general practices and at the interface with secondary care.

Children’s physic: medical perceptions and treatment of sick children in early modern England, c. 1580-1720

Historians of medicine, childhood, and paediatrics, have often assumed that early modern doctors neither treated children, nor adapted their medicines to suit the peculiar temperaments of the young. Through an examination of medical textbooks and doctors’ casebooks, this article refutes these assumptions. It argues that medical authors and practising doctors regularly treated children, and were careful to tailor their remedies to complement the distinctive constitutions of children. Thus, this article proposes that a concept of ‘children’s physic’ existed in early modern England: this term refers to the notion that children were physiologically distinct, requiring special medical care. Children’s physic was rooted in the ancient traditions of Hippocratic and Galenic medicine: it was the child’s humoral makeup that underpinned all medical ideas about children’s bodies, minds, diseases, and treatments. Children abounded in the humour blood, which made them humid and weak, and in need of medicines of a particularly gentle nature.