|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search |
→ Previous article in this issue
→ Read the reply by Mant et al.
→ See also the letter by Wilson
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on Administration and health services
Letters
To the Editor: Several studies have documented the high incidence of adverse events arising during hospital admission. The potential for discontinuity of care and poor communication is significant when patients are admitted to and discharged from hospitals, hence the Australian Pharmaceutical Advisory Council (APAC) has established guidelines to ensure continuity in the quality use of medicines.1 A study reported in 2001 by Mant et al found very low compliance with a minimum dataset based on the APAC guidelines.2 These authors subsequently held workshops to identify problems, develop action plans and refine these strategies. However, the follow-up report, published recently in the Journal, reported little change in adherence to the minimum dataset.3
Why are providers failing to follow the APAC guidelines? Certainly, one cannot assume that the formulation and dissemination of guidelines will necessarily lead to their implementation.4 To be effective, users must be aware of guidelines and convinced that they will add value to the way in which they work. Guidelines need to be credible and should make sense in the "real world". Given the attitudinal barriers of some groups to the uptake of guidelines, multiple strategies are required to ensure their effective implementation. Among these is the involvement of key stakeholders in guideline development.
Who are the key stakeholders for ensuring continuity of care regarding therapeutics between hospital and the community? While Mant and colleagues report workshops involving general practitioners and hospital staff, their reports do not identify which hospital staff were involved.2,3 Were clerical, pharmacy and junior medical staff included? These staff could make a critical difference in adherence to the minimum dataset. Furthermore, are these staff even aware of the APAC guidelines?
The APAC guidelines use the definition of discharge planning established by the Council on the Ageing (Victoria). This describes people, hospitals and community-based services working together — but the guidelines and associated minimum dataset place little importance on the patient. Patients' knowledge of their medications is discounted. Despite being mentioned in principles 4 and 6 of the APAC guidelines, patient knowledge of medication changes and satisfaction with the communication regarding medications is not considered in the minimum dataset.1
Strategies involving consumers should be explored as a mechanism for improving information exchange between hospitals and GPs. Similarly, an enhanced role for pharmacists warrants further consideration.5 Certainly, further critique of the APAC guidelines and exploration of reasons for their poor uptake is important to ensure optimal patient outcomes.
Health Services Management Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.
Michael Jefford, MB BS, FRACP, Postgraduate student; Joanne L Clancy, BappSci(Physio), GradCertHSM, Postgraduate student; Sharon M Butler, BappSci(Nurs), MBA, Postgraduate student.Correspondence: Dr M Jefford, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 3rd Floor, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004. michael.jeffordATludwig.edu.au
AntiSpam note: To avoid spam, authors' email addresses are written with AT in place of the usual symbol, and we have removed "mail to" links. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address.
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2002 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377