To the Editor: Newby and Robertson’s study of the effect of computerised prescribing on the frequency of repeat prescriptions for antibiotics is important in highlighting unnecessary repeat prescribing.1 However, their work has highlighted another issue — researchers’ growing habit of using the prescription of selected antibiotics to infer indication, and then to measure appropriateness of care.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Family Medicine Research Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Correspondence: joanh@med.usyd.edu.au
- 1. Newby DA, Robertson J. Computerised prescribing: assessing the impact on prescription repeats and on generic substitution of some commonly used antibiotics. Med J Aust 2010; 192: 192-195. <MJA full text>
- 2. du Toit S. “No substitution” now rare: study. Sydney: Pharma in Focus, 22-28 Feb 2010. http://www.pharmainfocus.com.au/NewsPrint.asp? newsid=3104 (accessed Feb 2010, authentication required).
- 3. Britt H, Miller GC, Charles J, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2008–09. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2009. (AIHW Cat. No. GEP 25; General practice series No.25). http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/gep/gep-25-11013/gep-25-11013.pdf (accessed Mar 2010).
- 4. Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. Report on government services 2010. Vol. 2. Canberra: Productivity Commission, 2010. http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/93903/rogs-2010-volume2.pdf (accessed Mar 2010).
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.