Letters

To the Editor: The growing shortage of medical educators, accentuated by the 20% increase in the number of medical students in Australia in 2007–2008, as described by Joyce and colleagues,1 is a concern that demands attention. It is understandable that clinicians might prioritise the provision of clinical services over the “less urgent” demands of teaching. However, if nothing is done about the shortage of medical trainers, the recent increase in medical student positions will be in vain. I propose that medical education should be taught as part of the medical school curriculum, with the aim of increasing the involvement of future doctors in teaching. Studies in other countries have shown that programs such as “Training Tomorrow’s Teachers Today” increase the competence and confidence of medical students as educators.2 Introducing peer education would also increase teaching opportunities for students; enlisting senior students to teach junior students has benefits for both, and has been shown to improve teaching technique over time.3 The inclusion of education in undergraduate curricula would provide students with valuable teaching skills and consolidate prior learning. By training students to be teachers, medical education would be promoted as the “norm”, which might help alleviate the growing shortage of clinicians involved in teaching. Although few doctors today take the Hippocratic Oath, perhaps we need to be reminded that it includes a promise to “teach the art” of medicine, as well as (arguably) the familiar precept “first, do no harm”.

Timothy C Mulherin

To the Editor: We wish to call for the removal of scheduling and legislative barriers in Australia that prevent easy access to naloxone for administration by peers to people suffering from a heroin overdose. Use of illicit opioids, typically heroin, remains the major cause of illicit drug-related mortality in this country, with at least one accidental opioid overdose currently occurring each day.1 Although population levels have not reached those seen during the peak in the late 1990s, geographically localised and transient increases in overdoses are evident.2 Death from heroin overdose typically occurs some time after use. In many cases, other people are present, and there is considerable scope for intervention to prevent death.3 Yet, in more than 70% of cases of fatal overdose, there is no intervention, and, where action is taken, calling an ambulance is seldom the first strategy, resulting in even greater risk of death.3 Opioid substitution treatment (with methadone or buprenorphine) is the mainstay of overdose prevention in Australia. Other interventions implemented here include outreach services and education for injecting drug users about the risks of overdose and how to respond to it.3 In 2000, Lenton and Hargreaves summarised the evidence for distributing the opioid antagonist naloxone for administration by peers to prevent deaths from heroin overdose. They concluded that an Australian research trial was needed.4 However, in 2001, the Australian heroin market was disrupted, heroin use and overdoses declined, and the trial did not proceed. Since then, emerging international evidence has demonstrated that injecting drug-using peers, family members and outreach workers can successfully administer naloxone to reverse heroin overdose — with few, if any, adverse effects.5 By December 2008 in the United States, 52 programs distributing naloxone for administration by peers were operating in 17 states, with over 1000 documented overdose reversals resulting from these programs.5 Most concerns about the intervention — such as the possibility of unsafe naloxone administration, reintoxication or more risky drug use — appear to have been unfounded, and naloxone administration by trained peers has been shown to be a remarkably safe intervention.5 In our view, the international evidence clearly indicates that increased naloxone availability will prevent many cases of fatal overdose, that conducting a trial in Australia is now unnecessary, and that naloxone should be made available without delay to be administered by peers in cases of opioid overdose. Careful monitoring and evaluation should be a part of this process. We call on all Australian states and territories to immediately enact Good Samaritan legislation to legally protect laypeople using naloxone in emergency situations. Naloxone should be reclassified from a Schedule 4 (S4) drug (available only on prescription) to S3 or S2 to make it available over the counter. As naloxone is no longer under patent,5 there may be little financial incentive for a drug company to pursue rescheduling. However, it could be rescheduled in Australia under provisions that allow state health authorities, professional associations or the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee to initiate the process. Heroin overdose deaths are preventable. We need to take action now to enable peer-led intervention to reduce this serious outcome.

Simon R Lenton · Paul M Dietze · Louisa Degenhardt · Shane Darke · Tony G Butler

To the Editor: On behalf of the Australian Association of Musculoskeletal Medicine (AAMM) and the Australasian Faculty of Musculoskeletal Medicine (AFMM), we would thank Briggs and Buchbinder for raising the topic of back pain as a National Health Priority Area (NHPA) for debate.1 The AAMM and its teaching arm, the AFMM, have been arguing for years that higher priority should be given to the management of low back pain, and we certainly support the arguments for making back pain an NHPA. We agree that back pain is a major burden on society, and that coordinated action that includes all stakeholders is required. Currently, members of the AAMM and AFMM are involved in contributing to the Australian Core Competencies in Musculoskeletal Basic and Clinical Science project,2 which aims to standardise the undergraduate teaching in musculoskeletal medicine around Australia. As well as supporting undergraduate initiatives, the AAMM and AFMM have been the significant providers of postgraduate education for doctors around Australia over the past 20 years, being engaged in activities that include the development of evidence-based guidelines and university-based postgraduate diploma and masters programs.3 It is then very disappointing to read disparaging comments about doctors with a special interest in musculoskeletal medicine. Briggs and Buchbinder assert that one potential disadvantage of making back pain a health priority is that it may provide “justification for those with . . . vested interests to promote clinically ineffective interventions”. The example they cite is a questionnaire survey of Victorian doctors in 2004, highlighting that a self-reported interest in low back pain or musculoskeletal medicine, or both, was strongly associated with back pain management beliefs and practices that are contrary to the best available evidence.4 The title of the Spine journal article4 is mischievous and misleading. The article implies that members of the AAMM have poorer knowledge about low back pain than doctors with no special interest in back pain. The real facts are that no attempt was made by the authors to specify what training or continuing medical education doctors had received, or whether they were members of the AAMM.

Victor J Wilk · Michael J Yelland · Michael B Oei

To the Editor: In the recent article by Briggs and Buchbinder, the authors propose that one advantage of including back pain as a National Health Priority Area (NHPA) is that it will increasingly encourage the management of back pain in accordance with best-practice clinical care guidelines.1 The emergency department (ED) is a key point of presentation for people with back pain. Research suggests that optimal management of low back pain incorporates multidisciplinary input, ensuring the provision of adequate analgesia and rational use of further investigations.2,3 On the basis of such data, we devised an interactive decision-support tool for completion by ED staff. The “Low Back Pain Assessment and Treatment” (LBPAT) guidelines were designed by a multidisciplinary team of nursing, medical, physiotherapy and pharmacy staff, based on accepted evidence-based standards of practice already in use.4 Use of these guidelines enables rapid assessment of “red flags” that may require further investigation and treatment. The guidelines include a flow diagram divided into three pain-management options for patients with mild, moderate or severe pain, with prompts for referral to physiotherapy and neurosurgery. The LBPAT guidelines indicate which imaging studies and blood tests may be required and when, as directed by findings. Information to assist discharge planning, including follow-up by a physiotherapist and general practitioner, and provision of information, is included. Once they were developed, we evaluated the effectiveness of the LBPAT guidelines in improving ED clinical practice. A retrospective case-record study of patients presenting to the ED and identified from International classification of diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) codes (for back pain or low back pain) was undertaken before implementation of the guidelines (October–December 2006; 87 patients), immediately after implementation (May–August 2007; 96 patients), and about a year later (July–August 2008; 28 patients). Uptake of the LBPAT guidelines was only 47%–50% in both postimplementation periods. However, adherence to pain management guidelines improved significantly after implementation (59% [57/96] compared with 46% [40/87]; P = 0.02), and was maintained a year later (57% [16/28]). Use of aperients in patients who were coprescribed opiates was much improved in the period immediately after implementation (40% [27/68] compared with 16% [11/69]; P < 0.001) and 1 year later (70% [14/20]). Postimplementation data suggested a reduction in unnecessary blood tests (ie, no red flags requiring further investigation). For patients discharged from the ED, discharge planning and continuity of care did not improve immediately after implementation, but were greatly improved 1 year later. If back pain is included as an NHPA, use of a clinical decision tool such as the LBPAT guidelines is one potential method of preserving resources and improving patient outcomes in cases of back pain in the ED setting.

Stephanie K Vaughan · Julie L Gawthorne · Andrew S Finckh · Susan A Welch

In reply: The two preceding letters highlight that there are many stakeholders with an interest in back pain in Australia. Many craft groups are involved with the provision of postgraduate education and have contributed to the musculoskeletal core competencies initiative. Vaughan and colleagues describe promising results from using a clinical decision tool for acute back pain in an emergency department. On a national scale, implementation of such a tool in all emergency departments may significantly improve outcomes and reduce costs. Making back pain a national priority would provide unique opportunities to rigorously study these types of approaches. A timely illustration of our concern about vested interests potentially promoting ineffective or unproven interventions1 is the lively debate centred on the recently published United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance for the early management of persistent non-specific low back pain.2 The recommendation that injections of therapeutic substances into the back for non-specific low back pain should not be offered, as the evidence of effectiveness is lacking, led to the forced resignation of the president of the British Pain Society because of his refusal to denounce the guidelines he helped to formulate.3 To suggest that the title of the Spine journal article is misleading and mischievous is patently incorrect, as the title, “Doctors with a special interest in back pain have poorer knowledge about how to treat back pain”, simply summarises the main study findings.4 Based on 3831 responses from general practitioners in New South Wales and Victoria, collected in 1997, 2000 and 2004, doctors who reported a special interest in low back pain were significantly more likely to believe that patients with acute low back pain should be prescribed complete bed rest until the pain goes away (relative risk [RR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.53–2.33); that they should not return to work until they are almost pain-free (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31–1.83); and that lumbar spine x-rays are useful in their work-up (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.21–1.52). We also reject the suggestion that we made disparaging remarks about doctors with a special interest in musculoskeletal medicine. After adjusting for the presence of special interests in back pain, there were no important differences in back pain beliefs between those with and without a special interest in musculoskeletal medicine. While we cited a survey that found that Australian Association of Musculoskeletal Medicine (AAMM) members see a high caseload of patients with back pain,5 we made no claims about the knowledge base of AAMM members.

Rachelle Buchbinder · Andrew M Briggs

To the Editor: We thank Page and colleagues for their important article considering the sociodemographic correlates of antidepressant utilisation in Australia.1 We note that fewer than 15% of the young people in the study were prescribed fluoxetine, and almost 40% were prescribed sertraline. These rates of antidepressant use contrast with the available evidence on treating young people diagnosed with depression. A recent review examining the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for depression among children and adolescents demonstrated that fluoxetine is the only SSRI with at least some evidence for effectiveness.2 Current clinical guidelines recommend that a young person diagnosed with a major depressive disorder who is to be prescribed an antidepressant should be given fluoxetine in the first instance.3,4 Reasons for the apparent lack of concordance with the guidelines might include treatment of disorders other than depression, or prescriptions for those who have already had an unsuccessful trial of fluoxetine. It would thus be of great interest to learn what proportion of young people are prescribed an antidepressant other than fluoxetine, and what proportion of young people prescribed an antidepressant are concurrently undergoing guideline-concordant psychological treatments, such as cognitive behaviour therapy. The data presented by Page et al draw attention to challenges faced by doctors providing treatment for young people experiencing depression, which include a lack of good evidence about the effectiveness of newer antidepressants for this age group. However, there is an opportunity to support better use of evidence in decisions made about treatment options for young people. The provision of high-quality, evidence-based information for patients and their carers to enable informed decisions is essential, and shared decision making offers a way to enable this.5 By improving the knowledge transfer between doctor and patient, antidepressant prescription can be more judicious.

Magenta B Simmons · Michaela R Willet · Sarah E Hetrick

To the Editor: In their editorial commenting on our viewpoint article on Team Care Arrangements (TCAs), Harris and colleagues acknowledge a number of problems with TCAs and a lack of evidence for their effectiveness. However, they state that “the idea of team care still has merit” and that although there is “ample room for improvement in the current process”, they “cannot agree with Hartigan et al’s radical prescription to replace TCAs with patient summaries”.1 This seriously misrepresents our article. We did not suggest that TCAs should be replaced by patient summaries. We stated: “There are many elements in the solution to this problem, but one of primary importance is the development of a comprehensive patient summary”.2 Among these elements could be the one suggested by Harris et al — registration of patients in a shared database. However, a shared database would avail little if the patient information contained therein is not sufficiently comprehensive to permit development of well considered treatment objectives and priorities. The essential issue is whether TCAs are an improvement on the coordination that occurs under the traditional referral system. Coordination exists along a spectrum. At one end, it can be rigidly structured, with all participants having right of veto over action by any of the others. At the other end, it can be fluid and unstructured, with decisions over who should be involved in any particular management issue left to the good judgement of participants. By electing to impose on general practitioners a coordination model at the rigid end of this spectrum, the architects of TCAs appear to assume that GPs are usually unwilling, or cannot be bothered, to consult with other health professionals and must be made to do so. This is a massive assumption that demands very strong evidence. What is the evidence? And even if there were evidence, is coercion the answer? There is no doubt that coordination in care of patients with chronic illness is important and that it can be improved. However, improvements must be based on evidence and be practical. TCAs are neither.

Paul A Hartigan · Tuck Meng Soo · Marjan Kljakovic

In reply: We accept the clarification by Hartigan and colleagues of their article’s intent,1 and agree with the importance of good-quality information in electronic databases, especially if the information is to be exchanged. Unlike Hartigan et al, we do believe that Team Care Arrangements (TCAs) have some merit, as they provide structure for planned care and help coordinate access to multidisciplinary care provided over a period of time within the complexity of the current health system. However, they have not been very effective in developing trusting relationships and encouraging better communication between general practitioners and providers outside the practice because of a variety of systemic barriers. In our editorial, we suggested some alternative strategies.2 Although the paperwork and complexity of current requirements could be reduced, we cannot see that coercion is involved. Both patients and providers can choose to enter freely into TCAs and the requirements are for communication and consent, not for “right of veto over action”.

Mark F Harris · Bibiana C Chan · Sarah M Dennis

To the Editor: The Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) has informed Australian eye banks that nucleic acid testing (NAT) of donor sera will be required in addition to routine serological tests for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV. NAT can detect viral genome in the window period between infection and the appearance of antigen or antibody, and is to commence in Australia as soon as possible. However, we believe the benefit of NAT would be small and the cost considerable. Importantly, it would be likely to have an adverse effect on the availability of donor corneas for transplantation. HBV, HCV or HIV have not been transmitted from seronegative donors by means of corneal transplantation. In the mid 1980s, HBV was almost certainly transmitted by corneal tissue to two recipients in the United States who developed acute hepatitis B; HBV surface antigen was detected subsequently in the donor sera.1 The transmission of HCV or HIV has not been reported despite corneal transplantation from infected donors.2,3 The American Red Cross instigated HCV/HIV (but not HBV) NAT for blood donors in 1999, and the US Food and Drug Administration mandated HCV/HIV NAT for eye donors in 2007. So, how many window-period eye donors could be identified by NAT? It has been estimated that 7.2 per 100 000 American tissue donors are in this period for HBV, HCV or HIV.4 With NAT, the number reduced to 1.8 per 100 000 (most assays, including NAT, have sensitivity limitations). Let us assume that the prevalences of HBV and HCV are the same in Australia and the US, the prevalence of HIV in Australia is half that of the US, and that prescreening by medical and social history is equally effective in both countries. At 700 corneal donors (1200 grafts) per year in Australia, one window-period donor would be expected every 23 years, falling to one every 93 years with NAT. Thus, one window-period donor would be detected by NAT every 30 years at an estimated cost of $9 million ($50 per donor averaged up for out-of-hours testing and kit wastage) plus any charges for specimen transport. If only HCV/HIV NAT is performed, such a donor would be detected every 52 years. What is the actual risk of infection? Assuming 25 000 corneal donors (43 000 grafts) per year in the US, the figures4 suggest that eyes were collected from one window-period donor every 7 months between 1990 (when a serological test for HCV became available) and 2007, but no infections have been reported. Perhaps there was no virus in the corneal tissue; even among donors who are seropositive for HBV, HCV or HIV, few have detectable viral genome in the cornea.5,6 It is not known whether these viruses can invade the cornea before the appearance of antibody, but the risk that infection will occur in recipients of corneas from HCV/HIV-seronegative, NAT-positive donors appears to be very small indeed. The TGA’s decision may have been based on factors other than this type of analysis. We believe the decision should be reconsidered.

Paul R Badenoch · Douglas J Coster

To the Editor: Compared with the Australian population, all-cause mortality rates among prisoners are four times greater among men, and eight times greater among women.1 Fatal drug overdoses and suicides comprise the overwhelming majority of deaths in post-release cohorts;2 hence, a large proportion of post-release deaths are preventable. However, the information necessary to determine appropriate public health responses to the issue of post-release mortality is largely absent, because there is no routine nationwide collection of numbers of prison separation episodes as there is, for example, for prison receptions.3 We aimed to estimate the number of inmate separation episodes occurring in Australia for the financial year 2007–08, using benchmark data obtained from public documents on the websites of each state and territory government department responsible for prisons. For each state and territory, we attempted to obtain the total number of inmates (ie, sentenced and on remand) released from prison for the financial year 2007–08. This figure was available for Victoria (5356), South Australia (4177) and the Northern Territory (2857). For New South Wales, data could only be obtained for separations of sentenced prisoners (7645). Hence, data on separations of either total or sentenced inmates were available for jurisdictions covering 62% of the national prison population. To adjust for separations of prisoners on remand in NSW, we assumed that separations of sentenced prisoners comprised 40% of all separations, reflecting the ratios of sentenced to total separations in other jurisdictions. Hence, the total number of separations in NSW was estimated to be 19 113. A multiplier of 1.6 (1/0.62) was applied to the sum of separations from Victoria, SA, the NT and the adjusted figure for NSW separations, in order to estimate separations for the national prison population. This produced an estimate of 50 405 prison separations nationally for 2007–08. Each of these separations is associated with a significant increase in risk of death. We have made an estimate of the number of prison separations in Australia for 2007–08, but believe that a more appropriate and precise method for obtaining this information would be to include separations for the total number of prisoners and for sentenced prisoners as items in routine data collection systems such as the Australia Bureau of Statistics Prisoners in Australia collection. This would enable better through-care service planning and provision of life-saving pre-release and post-release health services, such as prison-based opioid substitution treatment4 and overdose prevention and treatment interventions such as distribution of naloxone.5

Kristy A Martire · Sarah Larney

To the Editor: Pet abuse is considered another form of family abuse, and is a powerful marker for other forms of violence happening in the home. Women and children living with violence, isolated by their abuser, often form intense bonds with their pets. Perpetrators will use animal cruelty as a means to intimidate and control their partners and children.1,2 Women will put themselves at increased risk due to concern for their pets.1-5 RSPCA New South Wales acknowledges the link between domestic violence and cruelty to animals. In 2004, it initiated the Safe Beds for Pets program, which provides emergency accommodation for pets of women and children seeking refuge from domestic violence (http://www.rspcansw.org.au/programs/safe_beds_for_pets). The Central Coast, NSW, arm of this program conducted an anonymous, self-administered survey to identify the prevalence of perpetrator violence against the family pet and its effect on decision making by women. The survey was offered to local women who owned a pet, were aged 18 years or over, were experiencing domestic violence and had attended the Central Coast Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service, and was conducted between August and November 2007. Of 187 women, 92 owned a pet, 85 of whom completed the survey. Almost 75% (63/85) owned at least one dog, 45% (38/85) owned at least one cat and 22% (19/85) owned at least one bird. We found that 27% (22/82) of partners had threatened to hurt or kill a pet, and 23% (18/80) had done so. These data are at the low end of findings of other studies, which found that 40%–53% of partners threatened to hurt or kill a pet, and 26%–57% had done so.3 Out of concern for their pets, 27% (22/83) of women in our study delayed leaving home (compared with 33% in another study3), and 27% (23/85) returned to their partner. Women also delayed calling the police (17%, 14/84) and refused to lay charges (11%, 9/83) out of concern for their pets. Women whose partners had threatened or killed a pet were more likely to delay leaving, return home, delay calling police, or refuse to lay charges than women whose partners had not (Box). The study’s main weakness was that it was restricted to current pet ownership, thus excluding women who may have recently rehomed or abandoned their pets, or whose pets may have already been killed.3 Clinicians do not necessarily ask clients about the role of pets in their health. If the issue is not raised, women often feel reluctant to speak up.4,5 We encourage clinicians to: ask patients experiencing domestic violence whether they have pets, whether their pets are at risk of abuse, and whether they need help to keep their pets safe; and talk with human and animal service providers about opportunities for cross-service programs, such as Safe Beds for Pets. We support the development of a nationwide strategy allowing the simultaneous relocation of a woman, her children, and pets from a violent home.3 Relative risk (95% CI) of women’s decisions if their abusive partners threatened or hurt their pets Partner’s action Delayed leaving Returned home Delayed calling police Refused to lay charges Threatened to hurt 3.00 (1.54–5.83) 3.78 (1.95–7.30) 34.29 (4.74–247.97) 9.00 (1.97–41.07) Threatened to kill 2.41 (1.23–4.71) 3.64 (1.91–6.94) 5.58 (2.21–14.09) 4.12 (1.28–13.32) Threatened to hurt or kill 2.81 (1.44–5.50) 3.55 (1.82–6.89) 32.18 (4.44–233.18) 8.43 (1.84–38.57) Actually hurt 1.93 (0.92–4.07) 2.12 (1.04–4.30) 7.63 (2.66–21.88) 6.78 (1.88–24.43) Actually killed 1.35 (0.26–7.01) 4.59 (3.01–6.99) 5.78 (2.57–12.97) 6.33 (1.82–22.00) Actually hurt or killed 1.93 (0.92–4.07) 2.12 (1.04–4.30) 7.63 (2.66–21.88) 6.78 (1.88–24.43)

Cheryl Travers · Andrew Dixon · Karen Thorne · Kaye Spicer

To the Editor: Training of adequate numbers of surgeons and other medical specialists has, until recently, been a sleeper issue.1‑3 Trainees are intimately involved in public hospital patient care, but it is generally assumed that private patients are off limits for training. To our knowledge, the perceptions of patients in a private hospital setting have not been formally explored before. We present the results of a survey of attitudes of private hospital patients towards trainee involvement in their care. At a major private hospital in Melbourne, 82 consecutive inpatients undergoing elective general surgery over a 6-week period in 2005 were invited by us to respond to a survey (given prior to surgery and collected prior to discharge). Ethics approval was obtained. Sixty-eight survey forms (83%) were returned by the 82 patients. The median age of respondents was 56 years (range, 18–78 years), and 35 (51%) were men. The most important reasons given for having private health insurance were choice of surgeon (68% of respondents), quality of medical facilities (28%) and shorter waiting-list time (4%). Availability of trainees in the hospital to (a) communicate with the surgeon, (b) manage emergencies, and (c) perform minor procedures were all ranked as very to highly important, as was the ongoing education of trainees. When asked how comfortable they felt with trainees being involved in their care, 88% of patients said they supported having a trainee assist the consultant surgeon with surgery. Providing the trainee was under direct supervision of the surgeon, patients supported allowing a trainee to perform part of the surgery (75% of respondents), most of the surgery (50%), or the entire operation (41%). No significant differences in attitudes attributable to patients’ age or sex were found (Mann–Whitney U test). Within the limits of our small survey structure and incomplete response rate, our results show that most patients support the concept of having a trainee involved in ward care. There was polarised opinion on how much of the operation could be performed by the trainee, and this may vary for different subspecialties. Currently, junior medical staff work in many private hospitals, gaining valuable experience in perioperative care and exposure to a range of surgery. These jobs would be ideal for junior Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) trainees at Surgical Education and Training Level 1 or 2. However, individual surgeons may be concerned about the potential for increased complications4,5 and longer operating times, with a reduced number of cases and earnings per list. Discussion of medicolegal issues, remuneration and accreditation of posts would need to take place between hospitals, government and the RACS. It is clear that increasing demand for surgical training necessitates the consideration of an accredited role for the advanced surgical trainee in the private health care system.

Lih-Ming Wong · Lisa P Wun · Julie Shaw · Dominic Vellar

To the Editor: Roe and McDermott recently noted that the health benefits of swimming pools demonstrated by Silva and colleagues1 may be more modest than reported.2 Our initial observations from a remote South Australian Aboriginal community support this observation, but there are also many difficulties with study implementation that may introduce biases. A swimming pool was constructed during 2007 as a result of a community-led initiative. With ethics approval, trachoma screening was performed before the pool opening (November 2007) and 6 and 18 months after the pool was opened. Rates of middle ear infections, skin infections and antibiotic prescriptions among children aged 1–15 years were assessed using a retrospective analysis of clinic records between May 2007 and April 2009. A questionnaire regarding the benefits of and barriers to swimming pool use in the community was administered to key persons, such as community health workers and school teachers in April 2009. We aimed to examine every child in the community aged 1–10 years; 45/56 (80%), 46/62 (74%) and 59/64 (92%) children were examined at each of the three visits. The proportion of children with follicular trachomatous inflammation remained low and unchanged at the three time points (7%, 7% and 8%). The clinic records of 166 children showed a trend of increasing rates of infection and antibiotic prescriptions for the period. With hypoendemic rates of trachoma and possible confounding factors, including a small sample size, population mobility, reporting bias and a high turnover of health personnel, we were unable to demonstrate health benefits of pool usage. Our findings highlight the importance of avoiding complacency once a single intervention, such as a swimming pool, has been put in place. Long-term maintenance and supervision are needed to ensure efficacy of a pool. Aspects such as housing, sanitation, nutrition, education and substance misuse should also be high priorities when trying to address health conditions for which low socioeconomic conditions are major risks.3,4 Although we found no specific health benefits of having a pool, interviewees reported that the pool benefited the community in other ways, including providing an opportunity for exercise and recreational activity for otherwise unoccupied children, and creating an incentive to attend school, owing to a “no school, no pool” policy. The pool is a “public good”2 that cannot be denied based on lack of health benefits. Ongoing investigation is planned to monitor the effects of the pool in this community, and it may be too early to draw final conclusions concerning the health benefits of swimming pool use.

Anu A Mathew · Collin J McDonnell · Jill Benson · Hugh R Taylor

To the Editor: Li and colleagues analysed avoidable hospitalisation rates for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, examined trends over time, and assessed “the implications for future primary care interventions”.1 Their study results confirmed that Aboriginal Australians in the NT experience significantly higher rates of avoidable hospitalisations than non-Aboriginal people. They also report a widening gap between avoidable hospitalisation rates of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people during the study period, 1998–99 to 2005–06. Avoidable hospitalisation rates are used nationally and internationally as an indicator of primary health care effectiveness and accessibility. However, debate continues about which conditions to include as “avoidable”, and the potential for errors in allocating and coding the primary diagnosis. Furthermore, serious methodological issues remain regarding the use of avoidable hospitalisation rates as an indicator of primary health care effectiveness and accessibility. The outcome measure “avoidable hospitalisation” is affected by more than just primary health care. This is acknowledged by Li et al,1 who identify other factors that affect hospitalisation, including disease prevalence and severity, and geographical remoteness.2 If these factors are not controlled for, it is not possible to attribute differences in hospital admissions to differences in quality of primary care. This would only be possible if Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations were similar in health status and residential location (and other important respects). Aboriginal people in the NT experience far higher rates of diabetes than non-Aboriginal Australians and the age of onset is far younger. For example, there is a 10% prevalence of diabetes in Aboriginal people aged 25–34 years residing in remote areas of the NT. This is 19.5 times the rate of diabetes in a sample of the Australian population of the same age (which will be close to the non-Indigenous rate in the NT), using data from the AusDiab study.3 This young Aboriginal population is also 18 times more likely to have multiple chronic conditions than the AusDiab group of the same age.3 Hospitalisation rates of a population with this health profile should be high, particularly if the primary care system is performing well. Even though Li and colleagues recognise the complexity of measuring primary health care effectiveness and access,1 they still attribute higher rates of avoidable hospitalisations to Aboriginal people’s lack of access to effective primary care. This simply cannot be deduced from their analysis, as it fails to adjust for the high and increasing incidence, prevalence and severity of chronic diseases in the NT Aboriginal population compared with the non-Aboriginal population. This type of misinterpretation of data is serious, given the potential policy implications. We agree that the research question is important, but it warrants a sophisticated analysis that properly adjusts for the most important confounders.

Odette R Gibson · Leonie Segal

In reply: The national and international use of avoidable hospitalisations as an indicator of accessibility and overall effectiveness of primary care1 has included reporting differences in hospital admissions for different ethnic populations and across different geographical regions to highlight inequities in access to primary care. Avoidable hospitalisation rates are also routinely reported for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.2 Currently, there is no “gold standard”, but compared with other indicators, such as self-reported data from population surveys, avoidable hospitalisation rates are regarded as an objective and robust measure of primary care.3 Despite the established use, there are well recognised limitations in the interpretation of avoidable hospitalisations, which are outlined in our article,4 and also raised in the letter by Gibson and Segal. What our article highlights, using well identified data sources, is the difference in avoidable hospitalisation rates between the Northern Territory Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, as well as the very different trends. There are expectations that current reforms in the delivery of primary care for Aboriginal Australians can be directly monitored by improvements in avoidable hospitalisation rates. Our results highlight the need for caution in interpreting changes in these rates, and the substantial risks associated with unrealistic performance benchmarks.

Shu Q Li · Natalie J Gray · Steve L Guthridge · Sabine L M Pircher

To the Editor: Duckett rightly points out that community knowledge and expectations of the delivery of medical services have increased in recent years, and that the “baby boomers” of today will not accept the hospitals of yesteryear.1 He claims that the Australian health system has responded to technological change, but not to sociological change. Although the introduction of new medical technologies — a process largely driven by clinicians — has helped ensure that Australians still have access to quality health care, the same claim can not be made for the other kinds of technologies necessary to support delivery and review of good-quality care; notably, health information technology lags lamentably behind other sectors. In addition, we have not been “adept in responding to technological change”, because we have not figured out how we are to pay for it. The sociological changes that Duckett is concerned with are well recognised by many working in the public health sector. He states that macro- and provider-level reforms set the context for the interaction between the patient and clinician. He seems inclined to view this interaction as the final frontier — resistant to change and responsible for what he characterises as an ongoing lack of responsiveness in hospitals and health facilities. However, his outdated and stereotypical characterisation of doctors working in the public health sector must call into question his knowledge of what actually goes on in modern health care settings, in addition to pointing to a tendency to underestimate the difficulties of working in these austere and pressured environments. The conversation that privileged baby boomers actually need to have is one that forms part of a public debate about how much health care costs and how we should be thinking about rationing its delivery, or else paying more for it, as Queensland Health has perhaps finally learned. It is disappointing that, despite Duckett’s long years of experience in the public health sector, he fails to address the real implications of the changes, both technological and sociological, to which he alludes in his opening paragraph — how exactly are we going to manage the ever-increasing demand for increasingly expensive treatments by an ageing population?

Heather J Cleland

To the Editor: The next challenge for medicine in Australia, in Duckett’s opinion, will be the need to provide for the “very different expectations . . . and a greater sense of entitlement” of baby boomers, as they reach old age and have more need for health services, in and out of hospital.1 They will not meekly wait for care — but how will waiting lists for appointments and elective surgery be abolished? They will not accept “cattle class” in outpatient departments — but who will pay for the replacement of wooden benches with easy chairs? They will not accept whatever is on offer — but who will provide what is not on offer at a time of need? They will expect frank discussion of choices, risks and outcomes — but which cardiac surgeon or registrar will have the time to go into the 40 different possible complications of coronary artery bypass, an operation with usually excellent results? And if nurse practitioners or podiatrists become leaders of the medical team, will they be professionally and legally responsible when outcomes are unsatisfactory or disastrous? People with visions of the ideal medical service should keep in mind a basic principle, expressed by Enoch Powell 42 years ago.2 Even in prosperous times, limited resources (trained staff, facilities and money) will never meet unlimited demands. Duckett’s baby boomers may have expectations, but they must be measured against reality. With the unceasing growth of knowledge, technology and pharmacology, medicine is not about to become cheaper.

Derek H Meyers

In reply: Notwithstanding the differences in tone, Cleland and Meyers make the same substantive point: that a challenge I ignored in my short piece was the costs of meeting the different expectations of baby boomers. Regardless of the changed expectations I discussed in my article, health costs over the next few decades are predicted to increase from just over 9% of gross domestic product to over 12%.1 Economists recognise that societies appear willing to devote more spending to health care as they get wealthier, perhaps to avoid confronting the difficult choices involved in some rationing decisions.2 But should we immediately jump to the conclusion that more rationing is inevitable? What other choices are there? First, we — policymakers and clinicians alike — need to address the waste and inefficiency inherent in the current system;3 and, second, change the health system so that it is better suited to respond to changing needs4 and potentially “bend the trend” of health cost projections. Third, we need to recognise that rationing — or, to use a less emotive term, priority setting — is already part of our health system. Australia leads the world in terms of formal processes before listing new drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, but here too, improvements are needed. Clinicians are already involved in rationing choices, but different clinicians appear to have different thresholds of when (and what) treatment should be recommended. These differences may be cultural,5 and addressing these unexplained variations in practice patterns remains a policy work in progress. Thus, we in the health system have a lot of work to do in putting our house in order so that any rationing debate can occur knowing that alternative strategies have already been pursued.

Stephen J Duckett

To the Editor: Italiano and colleagues described a 49-year-old woman with prolonged vaccine viraemia, associated with hepatitis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome and poststreptococcal reactive arthritis following routine varicella vaccination.1 The woman, initially seronegative for varicella zoster virus (VZV), was stated to be immunocompetent, possibly because she was previously well and produced varicella IgG following vaccination. It is not clear whether other aspects of her immune status were investigated. Although VZV IgG was detected after vaccination, indicating appropriate adaptive immune activation, this does not necessarily exclude a defect in the innate immune system. Natural killer (NK) cells, which comprise 10%–15% of total lymphocytes, are part of the innate immune system and play an important role in the suppression of VZV replication via direct cell killing and production of γ-interferon.2,3 A smaller population of lymphocytes, known as NKT cells, which express both NK cell surface markers and T-cell receptors, also appear be important in controlling VZV infection in humans.2 The role of these cells in the immune response to varicella vaccine is unclear. In children, NK cell cytotoxicity increased after wild-type VZV infection but not after vaccine administration.4 However, disseminated life-threatening VZV infection was observed after varicella vaccination in a child with NKT cell deficiency.2 Primary isolated deficiencies and functional defects in NK function have been reported in children and adolescents with severe, life-threatening wild-type VZV infection.5 Some of these patients were previously well and came to medical attention only after VZV exposure. It is not clear how many had prior varicella vaccination, but at least one patient had previously received VZV vaccine with no adverse consequences and developed disseminated disease only with the wild-type virus. Acquired defects in NK immunity have also been reported. Severe transient depressions of NK and CD8 cell numbers and NK cell function have been documented in children at the time of severe VZV infection, with return of immune competence following convalescence.3 This phenomenon may be due to initial CD8 and NK cell exhaustion or redistribution of these cells from the circulation into inflamed peripheral tissue under the influence of chemokines.3 It has been suggested that an NK cell defect should be considered in unexplained severe herpesvirus infections.5 It would therefore be of interest to determine NK cell number and function and NKT cell number in the patient reported by Italiano and colleagues.

Sam S Mehr · Andrew S Kemp

To the Editor: The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing will revolutionise the practice of prenatal diagnosis. One of the many potential applications of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) is to determine fetal RHD status in pregnant Rhesus (Rh) D-negative women, and the feasibility of such testing was aptly demonstrated by Hyland and colleagues1 and commented on by Cole and Savoia.2 It is clear that once the technical problems of indeterminate results and gene variants are resolved, NIPD for RHD status will have improved clinical utility over current invasive testing, thus reducing the need for invasive procedures and prophylactic treatment of all RhD-negative women. The assay developed by Hyland et al can also be used to determine fetal sex, indicating a potential additional use in women at risk of carrying a fetus with a sex-linked disorder, so as to halve the number of chorionic villus sampling (CVS) tests being performed. However, it is worth noting that the number of CVS tests currently performed for this indication is extremely small. In Victoria, the complete population-based dataset on prenatal diagnosis for 2007 shows that there were only eight invasive tests for sex-linked disorders.3 The most significant impact of NIPD technology will be for pregnant women who request prenatal testing for Down syndrome. If NIPD testing for Down syndrome becomes available, it is anticipated that current testing based on chromosome analysis (karyotyping) of a sample obtained by CVS or amniocentesis will become redundant. However, replacing karyotyping — a genome-wide test — with a targeted NIPD test for Down syndrome will mean that many of the other chromosome abnormalities currently detected by CVS or amniocentesis will no longer be detected.4 We do not know whether this is important to women or not. Before implementing any NIPD test, we suggest that each application needs a separate investigation, including a careful comparison of clinical utility between current tests and the proposed replacement technology.

Marleen R Susman · David J Amor · Jane L Halliday

To the Editor: The authors of the recent MJA article “Making cars and making health care: a critical review”1 have misunderstood the importance of process design in a service as complex as health care delivery. They state that the Toyota “lean thinking” model has been “accepted somewhat uncritically” in health.1 In fact, the opposite is true. Work practices and roles in conservative institutions such as public hospitals have changed minimally over many years. Cutting-edge medical technology is delivered within an archaic work practice model that fosters inefficiency, frustration and unnecessary expense. Inefficient work practices give skilled clinicians less time with their patients — not more. Like Winch and Henderson, let’s take an example from the surgical field. Years ago, when public hospital beds were relatively accessible, many patients were admitted for “work-up” and spent days in their pyjamas in hospital before planned surgery. The application of the “just in time” principle has led to the huge turnaround to day-of-surgery and day-only admissions — freeing up beds and saving enormous cost as well as many unproductive days for patients. This is only one small example. Lean thinking is just one model for improving the way in which complex processes are coordinated.2 Far from being “highly stylised and simplistic”, lean thinking is about removing redundant steps and reducing duplication, waiting times and errors. It’s about investing in the talent and skill of trained staff, by maximising the value they add to whatever process they are working on and minimising the extraneous tasks they have to do.3 Managed properly, this can result in faster and better care delivered by happier staff, with more time to “cure and comfort”.1

Susan Ieraci

In reply: Our article highlighted issues with the uncritical adoption of car-making processes into health care planning — specifically, the regulation and splintering of the human element of a care pathway. While day-of-surgery admission speeds patients through the system, the capacity for error remains and relates to our original arguments. For example, one assumption commonly made is that the patient or carer has the literacy level to understand the presurgical procedures, such as fasting, taking particular preparations or completing health history forms. Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported in 2003 that 37% of the population met only the minimum literacy standard (Level 3) required to function in a complex society such as ours in Australia.1 Forty-six per cent fell below this benchmark. For health literacy specifically, 35% of the population met only Level 3 standard, with about 60% falling below this standard. This indicates that some of the work we have happily “outsourced” to the patient may be poorly understood and cause problems further down the line. It also highlights another key difference between cars and people: baseline control of the beginning raw material is difficult to achieve.

Sarah Winch · Amanda J Henderson

To the Editor: Eslick and Eslick believe that the television program The Simpsons causes children to smoke.1 What they gloss over is that in this show, only “losers” smoke. The characters Patty and Selma are old, ugly, mean-tempered, sexually frustrated sisters working in deadening jobs at the motor vehicle licensing office. They don’t just smoke, they chain-smoke — a well established television trope for sleaze and disease — and then they cough, hack, and wheeze. Krusty the Clown, if the name doesn’t tell you already, is a beaten-up, ageing, balding guy. He’s nasty, neurotic, and estranged from his father for abandoning his orthodox Jewish roots for the sinful life of television. Mrs Krabappel, the schoolteacher, is old, divorced, ugly, hates her job, hates her life, and hates children. It may be that children watch The Simpsons. I don’t know, and Eslick and Eslick cite no data that show they do. The questions, though, are: Do children understand what a loser is? Do they emulate losers, or shun them? Eslick and Eslick cite studies showing that any portrayal of smoking causes children to smoke.1 If this is so, why bother to differentiate between “neutral”, “positive” and “negative” portrayals of smoking? And what, precisely, do these labels mean? If, as they say, the “most notable characters” who smoke are these four loser characters, it is strange that they have coded most smoking instances as neutral rather than negative. Even if the authors have a valid labelling system, and even if neutral portrayals cause children to smoke, the question then becomes: is this effect greater than any countervailing effects, such as, perhaps, that of discouraging adults (and adults who are parents) from smoking, or that of creating a broad cultural association between smoking, social failure, and sickness? The logic of the argument put by Eslick and Eslick is that smoking should not be depicted at all in television programs that children watch. Given that children see people smoking in real life, and presumably look around them for some guidance as to whether they should do it too, it seems to me that it is actually commendable to tell them that only losers smoke. Strong evidence and argument that this approach does more harm than good would be very valuable.

Nicholas Jefferson-Lenskyj

To the Editor: The article by Eslick and Eslick1 caught my attention, as the sophisticated parodying of the tobacco industry on The Simpsons has been a much discussed topic among my tobacco-control colleagues. In the introduction to the article, the authors ask if the smoking and tobacco industry portrayals in this program are “just satire, or does the repetitive nature of characters smoking on The Simpsons have an influence on young children watching?” The study design employed cannot answer this question. I was surprised then that the authors concluded that the portrayals of smoking on The Simpsons negatively influence young children. The study results indicate that positive portrayals of smoking on the show are, in fact, extremely rare. It could equally be the case that the more numerous negative portrayals of smoking on this popular and subversive comedy reach young viewers in a way no government-sanctioned health promotion campaign can. Health education messages presented through social satire may not be politically correct, but this does not mean they are ineffective in communicating antismoking sentiments.2 The two most prominent smokers in The Simpsons, Patty and Selma Bouvier, are not characters that any teenager would aspire to be like — disgruntled, middle-aged sisters who live together, work in depressing jobs at the local Department of Motor Vehicles, Selma constantly bemoaning her lack of a husband and fantasising about 1980s heart-throb MacGyver, and Patty best known for her utter joylessness and cynicism. Surely these grim stereotypes would cause most young people to turn away from smoking, and not towards it? Tobacco-control policies themselves were recently lampooned in The Simpsons, with the Simpson family opening a pub in Ireland that illegally allowed patrons to smoke. Much mayhem ensues, and the Simpsons are eventually deported back to the United States for breaking the Irish antismoking laws.3 I am delighted that tobacco control has such universal momentum that it can be parodied on a pop-culture phenomenon like The Simpsons.

Becky Freeman

To the Editor: I read with interest the recent case report by Lim and colleagues on Chromobacterium violaceum endocarditis.1 References to the article do not include a report of a similar case published 20 years ago, also in the MJA.2 Perhaps reference searches can be enhanced — otherwise, identifying such similar cases falls to recollected experience (I was the initial treating doctor in the 1988 case) or an improbably capacious memory in the author or reader. What saved the patient in February 19882 were two new antibiotics that were not generally available at the time but were held at Royal Brisbane Hospital — imipenem and ciprofloxacin. Imipenem is a β-lactam antibiotic of the carbapenem subgroup, derived from Streptomyces cattleya, that was developed in 1985.3 Imipenem and other carbapenems including meropenem, as used to treat the patient in the article by Lim et al,1 are now available in Australia but restricted to intravenous use in hospitals. The oral antibiotic ciprofloxacin became generally available with a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme authority benefit soon after the 1988 case. I recall a discussion at that time with the late Dr Richard Kemp (then Director of Infectious Diseases at Royal Brisbane Hospital), who told me that C. violaceum infection in humans had been described in the world medical literature only about 10 times, and there had been no eventual survivors. From a general practitioner’s perspective, there was a lesson to be learned from the case: take the time to swab an abscess. The one in question was unusual — volcanic in appearance, indurated and not productive of pus on incision.

Richard N Pearson