|
Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
|
MJA Careers
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS |
→ Previous article in this issue
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on Administration and health services
→ More articles on Pharmacology
→ Search PubMed for related articles
Jill S Butty
Quality Facilitator, Werribee Mercy Hospital, 300 Princes Highway, Werribee, VIC 3030 jbuttyATmercy.com.au
To the Editor: It was refreshing to see the report by South et al, describing a simple, inexpensive intervention which resulted in a positive effect on the appropriate prescribing of antibiotics and a cost saving for the organisation.1
In the current climate, it has been much more fashionable to suggest computerised prescribing as the cure-all for medication and prescribing errors. As demonstrated by Newby et al,2 computerised prescribing has inherent problems, including an increase in repeat ordering of antibiotics.
The Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Healthcare suggests computerised prescribing as one of several strategies to reduce medication critical incidents.3 However, the costs of establishing such a system in smaller hospitals and community health centres can prove prohibitive. This can lead to an attitude of “too expensive” so do nothing.
Other strategies and interventions can be introduced at minimal cost to the organisation and yet prove effective in reducing both inappropriate prescribing and the number of critical incidents or errors. The provision of easily accessible standardised protocols and guidelines, the review of medication charts and their ease of use, changing the times of daily medication administration to maximise access to clinicians, and empowering patients to be more aware and responsible for their medications are just a few.
In summary, other strategies need to be developed and their success or failure reported. There should also be awareness that familiarity with procedures can lead to errors and reinforcement is required for all interventions. Computerised prescribing should not be viewed as the solution to all medication adverse events, but one of several strategies that healthcare organisations can use in their battle with medication errors.
Saji S Damodaran
Associate Professor, Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash University, and Clinical Director, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC 3168 saji.damodaranATmed.monash.edu.au
To the Editor: Australia has a high rate of antibiotic use. Increasing antibiotic resistance, spiralling pharmaceutical cost, need for evidence-based practice, public awareness, and widespread variation in prescribing practice, which may lead to quality and safety issues, are reported as the drivers for improving antibiotic use and prescribing.
South et al are to be commended for the introduction of a laminated card for doctors as a simple intervention to improve prescribing practices.1 Despite the passive nature of the intervention, they found significant improvement in the appropriateness of prescribing.
The authors acknowledge that they are not claiming that their intervention “is the cause or only cause” for change in practice. Areas like antibiotic prescribing and physician behaviour are highly complex and require a series of systematic approaches. Doctors are only one of the multiple stakeholders involved in this process. The level of experience, training background, and awareness of the public health and clinical implications of such interventions vary widely among doctors.
Improvement of South et al’s methodology from a passive mailout to gathering systematic baseline information about the medical staff involved, clarifying the purpose of the initiative and finding the proportions of uptake among junior and senior staff would have made the intervention more robust. One of the fundamentals of any change process is to instil a sense of urgency and develop a coalition to drive and lead it.
Development and evaluation of quality initiatives need more than just passive information provision. It has been suggested that any such quality and safety initiative should have set priorities, and these priorities should be developed using a systematic evaluation process with explicit criteria.2 Various systemic strategies that involved systematic methodology and evaluation processes, such as antibiotic decision support systems (both computer and manual) and drug utilisation reviews, reported sustainable changes in prescribing practices.3
The intervention by South et al is a welcome initiative, but it is important to realise that simplifying a complex problem like drug prescribing may lead to setting up wrong priorities for action and trivialise the problem and solution. Such initiatives will suffer the fate of the many quality programs that we hear about in hospital corridors but which fail to make a sustainable change.
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2003 www.mja.com.au Print ISSN: 0025-729X Online ISSN: 1326-5377
|
Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
| Terms of use
|
MJA Careers
|
More...
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS |