Letters

In reply: Boyd and Hedger have raised concerns regarding the initiation and choice of antibiotics in our recent case report.1 Several aspects of this correspondence need to be addressed. The primary focus of the article was to highlight an important and probably underrecognised cause of unexplained metabolic acidosis, and discussion regarding antibiotic choice was not within the scope of the article. Further, the patient’s management before admission to the intensive care unit was by a different treating team. Subsequent case-note review did not reveal reasons for initiation or choice of antibiotics other than described in our article, although it was evident that gentamicin doses were adjusted based on drug levels. We agree that a less nephrotoxic agent could have been chosen and that the profligate use of antibiotics in the absence of strong evidence of infection could have been avoided. The excessive use of antibiotics in the current medical milieu may stem from a physician’s lack of confidence, or even legal ramifications of “watching and waiting” in the setting of “fevers, chills, rigors, raised inflammatory markers and neutrophilia”, as encountered in our patient.

John V Peter · Natasha Rogers · Sandra L Peake

To the Editor: Primary care skin cancer clinics continue to receive negative publicity. We have previously reported on the workload profile of one network of clinics.1 We report here the profile of clinical activity of the four MoleScan skin cancer clinics situated on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. Between them, these clinics have been open for a total of 22 years, ranging from 2 years to nearly 9 years of operation. MoleScan is a service company with clinics across Australia. Doctors are employed as subcontractors and are provided with digital dermascopes. The clinics do not have dedicated day surgery facilities, and surgical procedures are conducted in the consulting rooms (http://www.molescan.com.au). Using Medicare Benefits Schedule item number billing data (as previously reported1), we calculated the number of consultations, biopsies, excised lesions (benign, non-melanoma skin cancers [NMSCs] and melanoma), surgical repairs, non-surgical treatment of skin cancers, and non-surgical treatment of other skin lesions. We also estimated the number needed to treat (NNT), defined as the number of benign lesions removed per melanoma. There were 98 276 consultations at the four clinics during the 22 years of operation (Box). In all, 14 982 skin cancers were treated: 395 melanomas and 7468 NMSCs by surgical excision, and 7119 NMSCs by non-surgical methods. The estimated NNT was 22.5. Of the 16 962 lesions excised, 11% (1812) were repaired by a skin flap, 68% (1226) of which were simple flaps. Our previous report, on a different network of clinics,1 showed a different pattern of surgical repairs: 33% (2651) of the 8055 lesions excised were repaired by a skin flap, 45% (1187) of which were simple flaps. Clearly, the clinical practices of these two clinic networks vary. Another area of apparent difference between the two clinic groups is the NNT — 22.5 reported here, compared with 28.6 from the other network.1 The lower NNT in these MoleScan clinics may result from the use of digital dermoscopy, but this requires further study. These early findings from our analyses of MoleScan data highlight the dangers of generalising about the activities of primary care skin cancer clinics from one dataset. Workload profiles of different clinical services may vary markedly, and the widely expressed concern about large numbers of inappropriate surgical repairs may not be warranted. Activities billed at four MoleScan skin cancer clinics on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, over a total of 22 years of operation * Eyelid, nose, ear, lip, neck, hand, digit or genitals.

Deborah A Askew · David Wilkinson · Gordon L Patrick

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Couper et al on the psychosocial impact of prostate cancer (PCA) on patients and their female partners.1 We agree that involvement of partners in the research pro-cess is pivotal to understanding the relational dimension of how PCA is both understood and approached by men and their partners.2 However, this could be extended to consider the unique experiences of gay men diagnosed with PCA and their partners. Heteronormative viewpoints are commonplace in PCA research. This bias is unfortunate, as there is a 28% possibility that one of the men in a gay relationship will develop PCA over the course of his lifetime.3 While it is probable that gay men and their partners have some of the same concerns regarding PCA as heterosexual couples, there are also unique concerns that are specific to gay men and their partners. Such considerations may include (but are not limited to): the prostate gland as a site of sexual pleasure and the associated implications of being able to engage in penetrative anal sex after prostate surgery;4 homophobia and/or disregard for sexuality within the health care system5 when being diagnosed with and treated for PCA; and the impact of polygamous (open) relationships and the ambiguous position of gay partners having to care for their mates.4 At this stage, the above concerns are purely speculative, as there is a paucity of literature on gay men and PCA.4,6 We believe future research on the psychosocial impacts of PCA should consider the experiences and special concerns of gay men with PCA, as well as those of their partners.

James A Smith · Shaun M Filiault · Murray J Drummond · Robert J Knapman

In reply: We thank Smith et al for their acknowledgement of the importance of the relational dimension to understanding how prostate cancer (PCA) is understood and approached by men and their partners. The psychosocial implications of prostate cancer for same-sex couples are important and need specific investigation. However, there are methodological difficulties in attempting to quantify the impact of PCA on same-sex couples and in comparing their experience with other couples. In our review of the literature,1 we discovered that where previous researchers had included same-sex partners in their studies, insufficient numbers were recruited for meaningful quantitative statistical comparisons. For example, Perez and colleagues,2 Neese and colleagues3 and Davison and colleagues4 each recruited only one same-sex couple into their studies of 134, 164 and 74 couples, respectively. We believe that a qualitative approach is needed, specifically seeking out and examining the experiences of a group of same-sex couples and comparing and contrasting their experiences with those of a group of male–female couples. This is an approach we are considering in future studies to help us develop and refine an effective but broadly applicable couple-focused psychosocial intervention for PCA.

Jeremy W Couper

To the Editor: We disagree with the recent recommendation of Graham and colleagues that all medical students should be offered BCG vaccination.1 In countries with a low prevalence of tuberculosis (TB), the side effects from the vaccine and losing the use of a Mantoux test to readily diagnose recent TB infection outweigh any benefits of a vaccine with relatively poor efficacy. The incidence of pulmonary TB in Australia is low (3.3 per 100 000 per year) and only 1.5% of isolates are multidrug-resistant.2,3 Thus, the likely exposure of medical students and doctors in Australia to pulmonary TB (let alone multidrug-resistant TB) will be low. In addition, most hospitalised patients with pulmonary TB would have been suspected of having TB before being sent to hospital, so adequate respiratory precautions should have been in place for most. This makes the risk of transmission to health care workers very small. Information from the Australian immunisation handbook is also very relevant to this debate.4 BCG can be effective, but mainly in preventing disseminated TB in children (> 80% efficacy). In adults, the overall protective efficacy is only about 50%,4 and the sole Australian study showed, at best, a protective efficacy of only 30%.5 The effect of BCG may not persist for more than 10 years but repeat vaccination is not recommended.4 Adverse events occur in about 5% of those vaccinated, with 2.5% being injection site abscesses and 1% lymphadenitis. About 1% of vaccinees may need medical attention as a result of the adverse event. Anaphylactoid reactions can occur, and keloid scarring can also occur (although rarely) at the injection site. The vaccine is “live”, and therefore contraindicated in anyone who might have HIV, other forms of immunosuppression, or generalised skin diseases.4 Graham and colleagues believe the problem of BCG vaccination interfering with the interpretation of Mantoux results can be overcome by using whole blood-based interferon assays, such as QuantiFERON-TB Gold, purportedly unaffected by BCG vaccination.1 However, the data for QuantiFERON-TB Gold need to be treated with some caution because it is a new test and there is no gold standard against which to compare it for diagnosing latent TB. The specificity of interferon assays in diagnosing latent TB has been estimated at 95% or more,6 but this will still result in a poor positive predictive value if the pretest probability of latent TB infection is low — and this is the case for health care workers in Australia. In summary, Australia is far more likely to protect its health care workers from TB through effective hospital infection control measures and migrant screening than through a vaccination program with a mediocre vaccine.

Sanjaya N Senanayake · Peter J Collignon

To the Editor: Graham and colleagues correctly assert that medical students are at increased risk of infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis in settings where they are treating patient groups with a high prevalence of active pulmonary tuberculosis (TB).1 This is well illustrated by the increasing prevalence of latent TB infection among medical students in their later clinical years in countries where community TB incidence markedly exceeds that of Australia.2 Their case for a standard approach to screening of medical students at course entry has great merit, and their arguments in favour of using an interferon gamma release assay to screen for latent TB infection would bring Australia into line with current international best practice. However, the data presented do not substantiate a policy of offering BCG vaccination to all Australian medical students whose screening test result for latent TB infection, whether by interferon gamma or tuberculin skin testing (TST), is negative. Although BCG offers definite benefits in reducing the risk of life-threatening disseminated disease in children under 2 years of age, it does not offer dependable protection against pulmonary TB in adults.4 Medical students who are vaccinated with BCG may be lulled into a false sense of security, and neglect other more effective infection control measures that would reduce their risk of TB exposure and infection. Although BCG is a relatively safe vaccine, there is a small but well defined risk of local and systemic adverse events.5 We therefore support a standardised approach to screening medical students with TST or, preferably, interferon gamma at course entry and exit. Screening for latent TB infection should be offered whenever merited during the course of study, after exposure to active TB disease in Australia or abroad. The benefits of chemoprophylaxis on conversion outweigh the risks associated with isoniazid use, and the risks associated with BCG may not be acceptable where the risk of TB exposure for many Australian medical students is currently negligible.

David N Durrheim · Michael J Hensley

In reply: The intention of our article was to highlight inconsistent approaches to tuberculosis (TB) prevention in Australian medical schools and stimulate a new informed debate. We therefore welcome the responses from Senanayake and Collignon, and Durrheim and Hensley. Interference with interpretation of tuberculin skin testing (TST) is one argument cited against the use of BCG vaccination for health care workers. While we agree that the new blood-based tests need further evaluation, unlike TST, they are not affected by BCG because they employ TB-specific antigens. The lack of a gold standard for diagnosis of latent TB affects both TST and the blood-based tests. Recent reviews of these new tests have been favourable — including one that states that, compared with TST, these new assays seem to have “better correlation with surrogate measures of exposure to M. tuberculosis” and that “because of their higher specificity they may be helpful in low-prevalence, resource-rich settings where cross-reactivity due to BCG may pose difficulty in BCG interpretation”.1 In fact, this article summarised the specificity of these new tests as between 95% and 100%. Other authors found a specificity of 98.1%.2 We agree that infection control is crucial in preventing nosocomial TB transmission, but every infection control practitioner has seen patients with unrecognised TB admitted to an open ward. One missed patient can mean contact-tracing and testing of dozens of staff. The Melbourne Mantoux study (involving 14 Melbourne hospitals) found that health care work and years of hospital employment were significantly associated with a positive Mantoux result — indicating the risk to Australian health care workers is not “negligible” as Durrheim and Hensley state. Nosocomial outbreaks of TB are well documented in low-prevalence countries.1,3 BCG is by no means a perfect vaccine. However, while BCG efficacy was once thought to only last 10 years, a recent large study suggested that it persists for 50–60 years,4 and there is new evidence that BCG vaccination may prevent some primary infections.5 While the risk of health care-associated tuberculosis in Australia is currently low, it would be unwise to assume this will remain the case, or that doctors will only work in safe environments. What will be the effects of HIV, further immigration from high-risk countries, drug resistance and the increasing use of immunosuppressant medications on the incidence of TB? We stand by the recommendations in our article, although we acknowledge they are controversial. There should, however, be no controversy about the need for a consistent policy concerning TB prevention in our medical schools.

Maryza Graham · Tanya M Howley · Robert J Pierce · Paul D R Johnson

To the Editor: In a recent observational study, Krum et al concluded that the treatment of heart failure after myocardial infarction in Australian teaching hospitals is suboptimal because angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, β-blockers and aldosterone antagonists are underutilised.1 We believe that another explanation, mentioned by the study’s authors, is worth exploring further — for valid clinical reasons, it was not appropriate for certain patients to start or continue taking some of these medications. An understanding of the enrolment criteria of relevant clinical trials is informative. The large, long-term ACE inhibitor trials quoted by Krum et al — SAVE,2 TRACE and AIRE4 — between them screened 34 037 patients with myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction. Only 5986 patients (18%) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria to be enrolled in one of the trials. Unfortunately, the CAPRICORN5 (β-blocker) and EPHESUS (aldosterone antagonist) trials did not publish the number of patients screened versus the number randomised, but a glance at their exclusion criteria explains why, for some patients, it may not have been appropriate to start these medications during their hospital stay. Some of the exclusion criteria for CAPRICORN were: unstable angina, ongoing therapy with antiarrhythmics (except amiodarone), secondary or tertiary heart block or sick sinus syndrome unless paced, uncontrolled hypertension (> 160/95 mmHg), bradycardia (heart rate, < 60 beats/min), hypotension (systolic blood pressure, < 80 mmHg), requirement for intravenous diuretics or inotropes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with ongoing inhaled β2-agonist or steroid therapy, and unstable insulin-dependent diabetes. Is there any harm in prescribing outside the inclusion/exclusion criteria for clinical trials? A population-based, time-series analysis linking prescription-claims data and hospital admission records of 1.3 million adults in Canada6 showed that hyperkalaemia-related deaths in hospital doubled after the RALES trial (spironolactone) was published in 1999. There was no reduction in re-hospitalisation for heart failure or all-cause mortality. The authors speculated that part of the reason for this was prescription of spironolactone to patients who would have been excluded from the RALES trial. While we would not advocate prescribing strictly within the boundaries of the inclusion/exclusion criteria of clinical trials, it is important to understand these criteria, so that prescribing in “real world” patients is done with care. We are reassured that Krum et al’s study suggests there is discretion in the prescribing of drug therapy. Presumably, during ongoing medical assessment, it will be appropriate for some patients to commence some of these medications (potential benefit outweighs potential harm), while others may need to have their medications reviewed because of adverse events.

Lauren J Bailey · Vasi Naganathan

In reply: We thank Bailey and Naganathan for their thoughtful viewpoint regarding prescribing according to clinical trial criteria. We agree that prescribing in the real world often involves complex decision making, taking into account age, comorbidities, concomitant medications and other factors, whereby guidance regarding individual patients cannot readily be extracted from clinical trial literature. This may certainly contribute to underutilisation of evidence-based drug treatment.1 Nevertheless, several analyses support the contention that physicians who more closely adhere to evidence-based guidelines (which in turn are derived from randomised clinical trials) produce better outcomes for their patients.2,3 Therefore, we would still advocate prescribing as closely as possible to guideline recommendations, while acknowledging that these recommendations may not always be readily applicable to every patient.

Henry Krum

To the Editor: The guidelines for managing acute coronary syndromes, published in a supplement to the Journal in 2006, provide a readily accessible tool for clinicians to enhance patient care.1 However, unfortunately the recommendations concerning adjunctive anticoagulation in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are suboptimal. The 2006 guidelines recommend that high-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation ACS should be treated with aggressive medical management, including unfractionated heparin or the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin, based on evidence from randomised trials showing that these agents reduce the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI).1 However, neither unfractionated heparin nor enoxaparin have been shown to reduce mortality in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation ACS, even when compared against placebo, and enoxaparin increases the risk of bleeding when compared with unfractionated heparin.2-4 By contrast, the OASIS-5 study, presented at the European Society of Cardiology Meeting in September 2005 and published in early 2006, showed that fondaparinux (a pentasaccharide inhibitor of factor Xa) compared with enoxaparin reduced death and stroke rates, and reduced the risk of bleeding by one half.5 Updating the recommendation so that enoxaparin was replaced with fondaparinux for patients with non-ST-segment-elevation ACS would save six Australian lives at 30 days for every 1000 patients treated, and would cause 19 fewer bleeds. The recommendations of the 2006 ACS guidelines concerning the management of patients with ST-segment-elevation MI are similarly suboptimal. There are now convincing data from randomised trials that enoxaparin is more effective than unfractionated heparin for preventing recurrent MI in patients with ST-segment-elevation MI who have been treated with fibrinolytic therapy.4,6 However, as in the case with non-ST-segment-elevation ACS, enoxaparin has never been shown to reduce mortality in ST-segment-elevation MI. By contrast, both the LMWH reviparin, and fondaparinux, reduce mortality,7,8 and fondaparinux does so without increasing the risk of bleeding.8 We appreciate that rapid advances in the management of ACS make it increasingly difficult for evidence-based guidelines to reflect the best evidence from clinical trials. However, when new evidence becomes available that is clinically relevant at the individual and population level, we believe the guidelines working group and the Journal have a responsibility to update the readers.

John W Eikelboom · Graeme J Hankey · Paul E Langton

In reply: We thank Eikelboom et al for presenting new data on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management. In this field of rapid advances, another recent study, ACUITY, has also been published, which examined bivalirudin in ACS.1 The Australian guidelines2 are based on peer reviewed published reports, and neither OASIS-53 nor ACUITY1 were released at the conclusion of the formulation of the guidelines. Also, fondaparinux is only available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in Australia for thromboembolic prophylaxis, and bivalirudin is currently only approved by the PBS for therapy during percutaneous coronary interventions. The Australian guidelines are consistent with international guidelines for both unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin considered as Grade A recommendations for treating non-ST-segment-elevation ACS, based on Level 1 evidence (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines). For example, the FRISC trial showed a significant reduction in mortality and myocardial infarction with dalteparin (compared with placebo; 1.8% v 4.8%; P = 0.001) at 6 days, which persisted at 40 days.4 The Australian ACS guidelines are a living document, and new evidence, such as the OASIS-5 (fondaparinux)3 and ACUITY (bivalirudin)1 findings, will be considered on their relative merits in future updates of the guidelines (available on the National Heart Foundation Australia website at http://www.heartfoundation.com.au).

Constantine N Aroney · Philip Aylward

To the Editor: A seminal 1997 article by Fine et al described the pneumonia severity score from the Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team study and raised the role for Hospital in the Home (HIH): For the remaining patients in [risk] classes II and III for whom treatment at home with oral antimicrobial therapy is judged to be unsuitable, there are alternatives to traditional inpatient care. These include parenteral antimicrobial therapy at home or a short stay . . . in a hospital observation unit.1 A recent article in the Journal by Charles et al2 omitted a role for HIH in managing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Where their protocol mentions outpatient care, readers are led to interpret this as oral therapy only, managed by a general practitioner. Similarly, it is implied that inpatient therapy relates to traditional treatment in a hospital ward. No further clarification is given. This is a surprising omission, given that one of the authors has written extensively in support of HIH in the past.3 HIH administers hospital-level therapy (intravenous antibiotics, oximetry, rehydration, medical and nursing attendance, with 24-hour cover) to a clinical subgroup of CAP patients who can be defined and included within any protocol. Evidence suggests that HIH can offer effective and safe treatment of patients with acute CAP referred directly from hospital emergency departments after diagnosis.4-6 Many patients with pneumonia appreciate the option of well organised, acute, home-based care. An important and growing subgroup of patients living in residential nursing care facilities can also receive acute CAP treatment in facilities with HIH involvement.7 A significant proportion of patients receiving HIH care have failed oral therapy.4-7 Why the omission of HIH? Protocols are tools of influence to be tussled over. This sometimes conflicts with their general aim of organising science into process and progress. Fine and colleagues’ intent in investigating the use of pneumonia severity scores was to help address the question of where and how to treat acute pneumonia. One of the aims of developing scores was to broaden the treatment options, not to narrow them.

Michael Montalto

To the Editor: The recent editorial on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) stated that “even in an era in which penicillin resistance appears to be increasing among some Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates, there have been no documented failures of high-dose penicillin in treating pneumococcal pneumonia or bacteraemia”.1 The medical literature suggests otherwise. Firstly, North American guidelines do not mention penicillin at all, and, in one analysis of 25 996 hospitalised patients who received monotherapy, mortality was about 50% higher with penicillin monotherapy than with monotherapy with ceftriaxone, another cephalosporin, a macrolide or a quinolone.2 More importantly, however, the same study found that the mortality rate in patients (even low-risk patients) treated with two antibiotics, one of which was a macrolide, was half the mortality rate of patients treated with one antibiotic. Dual therapies used were a macrolide agent in combination with ceftriaxone, another cephalosporin, a penicillin or a quinolone. Best outcomes were achieved with a ceftriaxone–macrolide combination. In a review of seven studies, Waterer3 found that patients with severe pneumococcal pneumonia or bacteraemic pneumococcal disease who were treated with two antibiotics had a significantly lower mortality rate than patients treated with a single antibiotic. This was despite the fact that the patients treated with a single antibiotic were not as ill initially as those treated with two antibiotics. Research by Waterer and colleagues4 showed that the benefit of taking two antibiotics was most apparent in the highest risk hospitalised patients, in whom mortality was five times higher in those receiving one antibiotic than in those receiving two. Thus, it is imperative that all patients with severe pneumococcal CAP be treated with two antibiotics, one of which should be a macrolide.

Patrick J Bradley

In reply: Whether Hospital in the Home (HIH) care is suitable for managing patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) depends on what is considered an appropriate use of resources. Overall, we see relatively few indications for treating CAP patients with parenteral antibiotics via HIH, as, in our experience, most patients who do not need supplemental oxygen and are well enough to be treated at home are usually also well enough to be treated with oral antibiotics. If they are not well enough to take oral antibiotics, then admission to hospital as an inpatient is generally appropriate. The occasional exceptions to this are selected patients in nursing homes (where around-the-clock supervision is available if required) and some patients with CAP caused by pathogens like Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter who benefit from longer treatment courses and may not have the option of oral antibiotics. Furthermore, a report submitted to the Victorian Department of Human Services regarding HIH care of CAP patients at a number of Melbourne HIH units identified significantly worse outcomes at some centres, mainly related to inappropriate patient selection. Notable, but fortunately rare, cases included some patients with pulmonary embolism incorrectly diagnosed as CAP. Given that between 20% and 50% of patients given a diagnosis of CAP in the emergency department do not have pneumonia confirmed by a radiologist,1-3 the ability of busy emergency department doctors to select patients appropriately is definitely a concern. Thus, HIH treatment of CAP patients may be appropriate occasionally, but very careful patient selection is vital. In response to Bradley, the statement that there have not been any failures in treating pneumococcal CAP with penicillins refers to microbiological failures due to antibiotic resistance. Although several studies have suggested that combination therapy may reduce mortality from bacteraemic pneumoccocal infections, all of these have been retrospective observational studies. Thus, they lack the ability to control accurately for potential confounding variables such as disease severity, patient or family wishes, pre-morbid quality of life, or “not for resuscitation” status. Data are also lacking on co-infection with “atypical” pathogens such as Legionella. The immunomodulatory effects of macrolides, quinolones and tetracyclines on treatment response are also still being elucidated.4 We agree with the CAP treatment recommendations in the Australian antibiotic guidelines,5 which recommend dual therapy with a β-lactam antiobiotic plus either a macrolide or doxycycline for all patients who are not allergic to these drugs.

Patrick G P Charles · Paul D R Johnson · M Lindsay Grayson

To the Editor: The article by Jordan and Osborne1 highlights some of the key issues to be addressed if chronic disease self-management programs are going to be effectively incorporated into the Australian health care system, particularly in primary care. Although the National Chronic Disease Strategy2 recommends that self-management programs be integrated and supported at all entry points into the health care system, many of the self-management strategies and programs have been developed with little engagement of general practitioners and have not been integral components of primary health care. Jordan and Osborne highlight that, without the support of GPs, programs such as the Expert Patients Programme3 may have limited success. We recently completed a systematic review for the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute to explore the evidence for managing chronic disease in primary care, with specific reference to the Australian health care system.4 The self-management programs found to be most effective were those that developed self-efficacy in relation to specific behaviours, such as diet and exercise for diabetes, rather than those that were more general. The combination of self-management support with delivery system design changes (such as multidisciplinary team care and follow-up) was effective in improving patient health outcomes for a number of chronic diseases. This highlights an important and developing role for practice nurses in chronic disease management. Given the burden of chronic disease in Indigenous populations, it is important to conduct more research on the role of self-management education and support in Indigenous communities, as there were few relevant studies identified in our systematic review. The funding available through the Australian Better Health Initiative5 will enable primary health care professionals, such as GPs and practice nurses, to receive self-management education training. Furthermore, to ensure that self-management support is embedded in primary care, we suggest that self-management support be included in care plans or annual cycles of care for conditions such as diabetes. Self-management support could also be incorporated into allied health services that are provided as part of a care plan.

Sarah M Dennis · Nicholas A Zwar · Iqbal Hasan · Mark F Harris

To the Editor: No one denies the right of insurers, or law firms acting for an interested party, to obtain information relating to a claim with due authority from the patient. After all, it’s fair enough for insurers to check the details of a claim. This system has worked well for decades and allows the insurance industry to operate reasonably and fairly. But a recent development gives cause for great concern. There is a trend among both insurers and lawyers to demand copies of a patient’s entire medical file. Not just details relevant to the claim, but the entire medical file, often extending for years before the relevant event. A cynic has suggested this is financially motivated, as a reasonable fee for copying and forwarding a file is likely to be less than the fee for reviewing the file and preparing a report. Another equally uncharitable explanation is that insurers are embarking on “fishing trips”, hoping to find grounds to mitigate a claim. I’m sure the industry could produce examples in which fishing trips have identified dishonest claims that might not otherwise have been detected. But I cannot justify sacrificing the privacy of many patients to expose the occasional fraudulent claim. In one case, one of my patients suffered a work-related injury that prevented her working as a private contractor for some months. The case was clear-cut, simple and straightforward. Yet the insurer refused to process her claim without receiving a copy of her entire file — including very personal details of a sexual assault nearly 20 years earlier, together with confirmation that she had contracted a sexually transmitted infection and details of her subsequent breakdown. For a vulnerable and very private person, it was a terrible ordeal to have this brought up and to have to sanction its disclosure to a claims officer. My financially strapped patient was held to ransom when the insurer advised that the claim would not be processed until the disclosure was authorised. How can the individual claimant ever stand up to a multinational insurer? And, in this case, appeals to the industry regulatory body were peremptorily dismissed. I support any stand by our profession against this unjustifiable invasion of privacy.

Bernard S Pearn-Rowe

Comment: Agents for a workers compensation authority commonly assert they have the right to see the patient’s entire medical history to assess whether the injury arose from work or from another past or current illness or injury. Two points need to be underscored. Firstly, patients have a right to waive their right to privacy. A consent for total disclosure, given when initiating a claim for compensation, could be invalid, as it is a consent given under (economic) duress — that is, payments will not commence unless the patient consents to full disclosure. A doctor may feel a duty to point out to the patient that full disclosure will reveal distressing matters from the patient’s past that the doctor believes are not relevant to the claim. The doctor may recommend that the patient seek legal advice on how to object to full disclosure. Whether the patient objects or agrees to total disclosure is a decision for the patient, not the doctor, with the help of legal advice. Doctors should not give that advice. Secondly, the legislation governing statutory compensation schemes in Australia gives extraordinarily broad powers to the relevant authority to demand information. For example, section 239 of Victoria’s Accident Compensation Act 1985 states that the Victorian WorkCover Authority (and its agents) may “require any person – to furnish the Authority with such information as the Authority requires . . . and may require the person to produce all books in the custody or under the control of the person relating thereto.” Doctors and medical records are not excluded from the broad sweep of section 239. Notwithstanding such clauses, a claimant can object directly to WorkCover about a request or demand to supply his or her entire medical history if the claimant believes there are matters not relevant to the claim that he or she does not wish to be disclosed. If that process fails, the claimant then has a number of legal avenues that can be pursued. Pearn-Rowe may be concerned at the David–Goliath imbalance of power between patient and insurer, but that does not justify omission of information because the doctor thinks it is not relevant. The Medical Defence Association of Victoria recently settled a case in which a member, asked to provide a “Personal medical attendant’s report” for a patient applying for a new disability insurance policy, omitted information about the patient’s history that would have affected the insurer’s assessment of the application. The patient had signed a consent for full disclosure. The insurer issued the policy, and a short time later the patient was diagnosed as suffering a major illness, the premonitory symptoms of which were described in the omitted information. Whether or not it was a deliberate omission was not the point — it was a negligent omission. In summary, the patient has a right to object to disclosure. If the patient chooses not to, the doctor has a legal obligation to comply with the literality of the patient’s signed consent for disclosure.

Paul Nisselle

To the Editor: “Out of the blue”, I received a personal message from a retired nursing sister of a children’s hospital, who had earlier written to the MJA1 describing “a cluster of neonates [who had] simultaneously turned blue” in the 1950s. Her letter to me followed one of mine in the Journal, describing methaemoglobinaemia (MetHgb) in infantile keto-acidosis, where the cyanosis responded rapidly to diabetic control alone.2 Rare as MetHgb is, it has previously been recognised as a presentation of infantile acidosis.3 The cause of the colour change in the neonate cluster “was traced to dye from the hospital’s brandmarks on a batch of new cotton nappies (which had been washed before being marked)”.1 The dye was understood to have been “absorbed into the infants’ circulation via their raw umbilical areas”. As it turns out, nappy dyes have been incriminated in MetHgb.4 The POISINDEX® System (Thomson Micromedex, Denver, Colo, USA) revealed that the aniline group is among the compounds capable of causing MetHgb through any portal of entry, even intact skin (Stephen Gibbins, Poisons Information Specialist, Victorian Poisons Information Centre, Melbourne, personal communication). Another textile ink, aminophenol, may also lead to the disorder.5 Other common causes of MetHgb are given in the Box. Causes of methaemoglobinaemia (MetHgb) MetHgb can be genetic, through faulty haemoglobins or cytochrome deficiency. On exposure to appropriate exogenous toxins, heterozygotes tend to be particularly susceptible, as are infants per se without any such trait.4 Nappy dyes have been incriminated.4 In the United Kingdom between 1961 and 1980, the most common industrial causes of acquired MetHgb were chloroaniline, p-toluidine, nitrobenzene, nitrochlorobenzene, nitrates and amines — frequently by dermal exposure. Nitrates, nitrites in food, local anaesthetics (particularly benzocaine), and other medicinal agents, such as chloroquine, dapsone, para-aminosalicylic acid and resorcinol, have also been implicated.5,6 Aniline dyes were discovered in the 19th century and found useful for inks and for dyeing leather, which they penetrate as they do living skin. They were also used in wood stains, textiles, and oriental rug-making. Because aniline dyes are not indelible and are toxic, they are being superseded by chrome dyes. The hospital linen room concerned1 reports that they now apply dry, colour-fast pigments using heat-pressed or stamped “transfers” (Administrative Officer, Metropolitan Linen Services, Brisbane, personal communication). It is not possible to confirm what the “Baby blues”1 dye was — aniline or other. Nor can we now establish whether the dusky colour of the babes was due to absorbed dye circulating passively. Circumstantially however, MetHgb would seem to have been a likely possibility.4 In differential diagnosis, when cyanotic infants or adults without cardiorespiratory signs are encountered, we should not forget MetHgb, drugs and chemical toxins. In patients with MetHgb, the blood will be “chocolate-brown”; and yes — do remember to take a sniff for that exhaled acetone.2

Ivan Cher

To the Editor: We recently read with concern the article by Scott and Ward on public reporting of hospital outcomes.1 While we do not want to enter into the debate about whether the public release of hospital performance reports is beneficial or harmful, we would like to address some issues relating to the accuracy of administrative data. The authors stated that “data are often [our italics] inaccurate, incomplete, or provide insufficient clinical detail” and that the “accuracy of diagnosis coding is vari-able”. They also mention the potential for “gaming” or “up-coding” by hospitals to make their institutions look better in public reports. We believe the authors’ argument regarding coding inaccuracies is flawed. One of the articles they cited was not about coding accuracy but about mortality differentials between metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions.2 Another cited article quoted an example of a 100% miss rate for coding of dementia as a comorbidity that was based on only three cases.3 As the authors later stress in their article, it is important that sample size be considered when interpreting data, to ensure that the effects of random error are minimised. We agree with the authors’ final point that distinguishing complications from presenting diagnoses (or comorbidities) is currently difficult using hospital coded data. However, the Victorian and Queensland hospital data collections now include an “alpha flag”, which is a letter attached to each coded diagnosis to indicate whether the diagnosis was present on admission to hospital or whether it arose during the episode of care. Moves are underway to introduce a minimum national requirement to use the alpha flag as one method of identifying complications arising from medical or surgical care. There are a number of national and state initiatives that aim to ensure the national morbidity data collection is as accurate as possible and that it provides data directly related to its purpose (and therefore not necessarily useful for other purposes). There is currently a national debate about the purpose of this collection. It is clear that there are issues surrounding the capture and coding of hospital data that are not well understood by data users. Because of that misunderstanding, reports such as the one by Scott and Ward paint an unjustifiably bleak picture of the quality of the data.

Kerry Innes · Kirsten McKenzie · Sue Walker

In reply: Innes and colleagues accuse us of overstating the potential inaccuracy of coded administrative data. They refer to state and national initiatives underway to ensure such accuracy, but offer no hard statistics that would reassure us that such data, in their current form, are as accurate as they need to be for purposes of quality monitoring and public disclosure. Until they do, we feel we have good reason to recommend caution in light of the few published Australian reports that are available (which we cited1,2), together with other research3 and feedback from clinical directors, about significant error rates when coded diagnoses are audited by clinicians or compared with independent datasets maintained by clinicians (Professor David Johnson, Director of Nephrology, and Dr Paul Garrahy, Director of Cardiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, personal communication). In Queensland, formal regular audits on coding accuracy were initiated only in October 2005. They involve small numbers of randomly selected charts from each hospital and focus on specific coding issues identified for each hospital (Professor Stephen Duckett, Executive Director of Reform and Development, Queensland Health, personal communication). While we welcome (and were aware of) the introduction of “alpha flags” to distinguish in-hospital complications from pre-existing conditions, these remain a recent development (especially in Queensland), and others with considerable experience in their use express caution in interpreting results in the absence of rigorous validation.4,5

Ian A Scott · Michael Ward

To the Editor: Your 3 July issue featured task substitution and task transfer. It is a principle of commercial organisation that if a task can be standardised, it can be delegated, automated or computerised, provided there is good central management, supervision and communication. However, I suspect that this is only a part of the new face of general practice, as we are being expected to undertake tasks for which my age cohort (I am 54) was neither trained nor prepared. Practice administration is far more complex than ever before, and most of the clinical caseload has shifted from episodic care of infections and surgical conditions to the long-term systematic management of chronic cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and other illnesses. Diabetes is a good example. Managing patients with diabetes requires high-level skills in practice management and protocol-driven chronic disease care. I suggest that a basic and fundamental difference between doctors and allied health personnel is that allied health personnel are extremely comfortable with protocol-driven chronic management while doctors, especially of my age cohort, are more focused on detecting and dealing with difference, variation and abnormality in our patients’ health. Rather than force all groups to do the same tasks, is it not better to build on their skills and interests in a logical and structured manner? General practices are no longer only places where general practitioners work; they are evolving into teams of GPs, other doctors, administrators, allied health personnel and office and information techno-logy staff, who work together in an integrated and coordinated way for the benefit of patients. This provides mutual support, flexibility of work hours and increased job satisfaction for all. Our practice has been steadily working towards this for the past 20 years.

Christopher D Hogan

To the Editor: A young man, a minor when sentenced in Sydney, was diagnosed with lymphoma soon after incarceration. Appropriate treatment was initiated, including pretreatment collection and storage of his semen. A local newspaper report that his sperm was collected and stored at taxpayers’ expense prompted outrage in some sections of the community. In response, the New South Wales Government drafted the Corrective Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, which would make it a crime for an individual imprisoned or awaiting sentencing for a “serious indictable offence”, such as homicide, rape or terrorism to store “reproductive material” (semen or ova).1 It is routine (many would say mandatory) for men of reproductive age who are about to undergo therapy for cancer to be offered the option to store semen. Without this option, male cancer survivors might be unable to father their own offspring. There is no current routine technology for storing unfertilised ova. In current practice for male prisoners, semen is stored before commencing treatment for cancers or similar conditions that may induce temporary or permanent infertility. This is the accepted standard of care, offered before such treatment to men who may not have completed their families. It is not current practice in NSW to store prisoners’ semen in any other circumstances. The proposed Bill will discriminate against prisoners in the quality and costs of their health care. Members of our community who require chemotherapy for cancer are offered collection and storage of their semen, provided free of charge by several public services in NSW. Under the proposed Bill, prisoners are required to pay storage fees during their imprisonment, even if their sperm were placed in storage before their incarceration. Discriminating against certain prisoners by demanding payment for otherwise free services could be seen as a “cruel and unusual punishment”. The NSW Legislative Assembly passed the Bill on 25 May 2006. Medical, legal and human rights organisations, and individuals expressed concern to parliamentarians. In the Legislative Council on 7 June 2006, a majority vote referred the Bill to the General Purposes Standing Committee No. 3. This Committee has received submissions and will provide recommendations as to how the Bill should proceed. If passed into law, the Bill would breach the principle of equivalence of health care for prisoners. The Australian Medical Association position statement on the Health care of prisoners and detainees states: “The duty of medical practitioners to treat all patients professionally with respect for their human dignity and privacy applies equally to the care of those detained in prison, whether convicted or on remand, irrespective of the reason for their incarceration.”2 I argue that the Bill implies an intention to rid society of “criminal seed” and begins a move towards eugenics. If our society really accepts the idea that inmates of correctional facilities may one day return to a full and productive life, then it is unreasonable to deny them the possibility of having their own children because they developed a serious cancer. If this legislation is passed, a discriminatory practice of medicine according to convict status will be enshrined in NSW law.

John E J Rasko

To the Editor: Quality data about patients with injuries requiring hospitalisation is vital to injury policy and prevention strategies.1 The ICD-10-AM is used in Australia to assign codes to diagnoses, procedures, and causes of injury recorded in patient medical records.2 This coded hospital morbidity data provides a key surveillance tool for injury researchers. ICD classifications are designed for statistical reporting and are required for classifying all information encountered in hospital medical records. When insufficient information is available in the medical record to assign specific codes, the use of residual “Unspecified” categories helps to achieve this. Detailed and accurate documentation provided by clinicians in patient medical records is imperative to produce high quality coded data.3 Poor documentation in medical records has been shown to decrease data quality by contributing to an overuse of “Unspecified” codes.4 This is especially so for documenting external cause of injury, which may not be seen as critical to the patient’s care by the treating clinician, with the result that the relevant detail is incomplete or omitted altogether. We aimed to identify the level of precision of coded injury data in Australian hospitals. Using the 2003–2004 national morbidity dataset, 445 098 records containing an injury and an external cause classified by intent were found (Box). At a broad intent level, the majority of injuries were assigned to a specific mechanism code, although in two intent categories, “Accident” and “Assault”, 11% and 13% of injuries, respectively, were assigned to “Unspecified” categories. It is concerning that 45 297 of the injuries requiring hospitalisation lacked adequate documentation in the medical record to permit meaningful code assignment for cause of injury. A significant lack of precision was evident in recording mechanisms of accidental falls and poisonings (across all intents). A quarter of falls and 20% of poisoning cases had no specific information about the causal mechanism or substance. Being the most commonly reported accident mechanism, falls of unspecified cause represented 11% of accidents overall. This lack of detail is particularly concerning given the significant national priority now placed on falls and poisoning injury prevention.5 It is essential that clinicians and coders alike are aware of documentation and coding problems related to capturing data on cause of injury. By working together to improve the quality of injury-related coded data (through improved clinical documentation), accurate and comprehensive information pertaining to the circumstances surrounding injury events requiring hospitalisation will benefit injury policy and prevention initiatives. Precision of recorded cause of injury data across selected ICD-10-AM categories2 for 2003–04 ICD-10-AM categories Specified Unspecified Total Intent Accident 347 781 (89.2%) 42 078 (10.8%) 389 859 Intentional self-harm 29 018 (99.6%) 130 (0.4%) 29 148 Assault 19 385 (87.2%) 2 841 (12.8%) 22 226 Undetermined intent 3 617 (93.6%) 248 (6.4%) 3 865 Total 399 801 (89.8%) 45 297 (10.2%) 445 098 Mechanism Accidental falls 130 089 (74.6%) 44 336 (25.4%) 174 425 Poisoning (all intents) 31 111 (80.0%) 7 798 (20.0%) 38 909

Kirsten McKenzie · Leith F Harding · Susan M Walker · James E Harrison · Emma L Enraght-Moony · Garry S Waller

To the Editor: The recommendation for managing acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is that the door-to-balloon inflation time should be 90 minutes. However, it can be up to 120 minutes, depending on when patients present to the emergency department (ED) after the onset of their symptoms.1 In such cases, an alternative immediate reperfusion strategy — fibrinolysis — should be considered. At first glance, a door-to-balloon time of 90 minutes seems readily achievable, but what if the patient presents after hours, or presents to a hospital without PCI facilities? The time required to refer the patient for PCI, organise ambulance transport and call in cardiac catheterisation laboratory staff can be considerable. In the PRAGUE-2 trial from the Czech Republic, the average door-to-balloon time was 97 minutes.2 The DANAMI-2 study from Denmark had a cohort of 27 080 patients and had door-to-balloon times of about 114 minutes for those patients transferred to another facility.3 The National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 4 investigators reported a median door-to-balloon time of 185 minutes for American patients transferred to centres capable of PCI, and a door-to-balloon time of less than 90 minutes for only 3% of patients.4 Doctors working in EDs without onsite access to PCI need to know the door-to-balloon times of the institutions to which they refer patients for PCI. Centres performing PCI may not be forthcoming with this information, as they have a vested interest in keeping their numbers up for PCI. Alternatively, this information may not be known to the clinician accepting the patient for PCI. In addition, doctors in EDs who opt to transfer their patients have the burden of organising transport for potentially unstable patients who may develop lethal arrythmias. As door-to-needle time for thrombolysis has become a clinical indicator for EDs, perhaps door-to-balloon times can be a clinical indicator for cardiac catheterisation laboratories. Finally, it is important to note that in some patients requiring urgent coronary artery reperfusion, the first electrocardiogram (ECG) is not diagnostic, so a more pragmatic indicator would be diagnostic ECG-to-balloon time. This would require an enforcement of the current recommendations for an ECG to be performed and critically reviewed shortly after a patient presents with symptoms suggestive of an acute coronary syndrome.

Jayantha I Weeraratne

In reply: We agree with the points highlighted by Weeraratne, and these have been broadly addressed within the new National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2006.1 The guidelines emphasise the need for appropriate systems of care which are regionally based, have formal links with specialist centres, include appropriate monitoring, feedback and quality improvement components, and are sensitive to the cultural and personal beliefs and wishes of individual patients. Clinicians do need to know the achievable door-to-balloon times for primary percutaneous coronary intervention within their local contexts, and if there is any doubt about the timely availability of this treatment for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the guidelines recommend that fibrinolysis be given promptly.

Philip Aylward · Constantine N Aroney