General medicine

To the Editor: I refer to the opinion piece by Brewster and Waxman.1 The authors defined collegiality as “a work environment where responsibility and accountability are shared by colleagues, with mutual respect”. However, in a health care setting, professional competency and patient safety are paramount; medical collegiality is desirable, but should not trump these goals. Collegial courtesy can compromise good patient care, despite concerns of competency in clinical judgement or skills. Poor communication contributes to most sentinel events,2 particularly during clinical handover. SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation), which was what ISBAR (Introduction, Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation) was known as in 2009, was promoted to reduce dangerous transitions in the patient's journey in health care.3 Unfortunately, when first introduced in Australia, unnecessary local adaptations were applied to this simple tool — at least seven versions of SBAR existed across six states between 2009 and 2011.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 In 2002, SBAR was introduced by retired United States Navy Captain Doug Bonacum, while working at Kaiser Permanente on patient safety, to address the lack of effective communication in sentinel events similar to nuclear submarine incidents and airplane crashes. A quality and safety expert, he drew on his handoff experience from nuclear submarine crews needing to discuss strategies quickly during shifts changeover, thus improving communication, reducing unnecessary narratives and assisting decision making. SBAR improves communication both within the craft group and in interdisciplinary interaction as it flattens the hierarchy.12 ISBAR can fail when the giver (person providing ISBAR) neglects to prepare or perform ISBAR effectively; this is often due to inadequate training, preparation or consideration of what the receiver requires before initiating the handover. Hence, the success of ISBAR rests more on the giver rather than the receiver of the handover. Kindness should be part of ISBAR, but it starts with the giver initiating the handover. Adequate consideration should be made by ensuring thoughtful preparation and organisation to deliver relevant information professionally and competently.13 Less experienced givers should be ready to furnish any specific details upon request. Such reflections enhance communication, reduce errors and improve confidence and morale. Few can perform ISBAR properly “on the run”; formal re‐accredited requirements involving ISBAR should be mandatory for all health care professionals to ensure this critical clinical handover is done well. Slavish adherence to collegiality should not blur the fundamental issues of professional competency and patient safety.

Shyan Lii Goh

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Brewster and Waxman1 published in the Medical Journal of Australia. Building kindness and collegiality into regular handover practice is an obligation of increasing urgency in contemporary medical settings. Clinical handover is often led by junior medical staff and can be perceived as a stressful time for them. Junior doctors have expressed fears regarding public approbation as a contributory factor for stress and burnout.2 Obstetric junior doctors within our own tertiary maternity hospital responding to the Australian Medical Association of Western Australia Hospital Health Check survey reported high levels of stress.3 Ultimately, handover is likely to be a precipitating event for stress and anxiety in this group, and addressing psychological wellbeing during this time will have benefits to both staff and patients.4 In 2018, we built kindness into our labour ward handover process, as part of a formal junior doctor wellbeing initiative. The existing handover structure commenced with individual staff introductions for all members of staff in attendance, including name and role for each staff member. We incorporated a specific staff member to handover, whose sole role, stated during introduction, is “I am here to provide emotional support to the team”. This explicit statement places emotional wellbeing of all staff members at the heart of the priorities for the handover session. Induction to the roles and responsibilities of the profession has been identified as part of the purpose of handover.5 By building kindness and support into our organisation on a daily basis, we hope to improve the wellbeing of all staff members involved in this small but vital daily interaction and embed kindness and support in the broader workplace culture. A post‐intervention survey of the response to our emotional wellbeing initiative will be available in July 2019, at which point, we will learn the effectiveness of the added focus on kindness in handover meetings. Preliminary feedback from our junior doctors has been positive.

Alarna Thomas · Katrina L Calvert · Brendan Jansen

In reply

David J Brewster · Bruce P Waxman

To the Editor: We refer to Liaw and colleagues’1 recently published study in the Journal. We acknowledge the positive intentions and rigour of this trial, and empathically concur with Thompson and Thackrah’s2 comment that the results of this research “[do] not mean that efforts to improve cultural competence in health care settings should be abandoned”. To the contrary, this study demonstrates the urgent need for more research to improve cultural competence in the health care setting; in particular, the use of culturally safe research methods that truly benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities.3 Like Thompson and Thackrah,2 we question the authors’ choice of the cultural quotient questionnaire.4 This generic tool is not designed for assessing cultural competence of health professionals when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. Importantly, it lacks recognition of the unique colonial experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and, therefore, it cannot measure health professionals’ understandings or attitudes about such a key part of any cultural training, where we would hope to see change. We suggest the use of a scale that has been designed and validated by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, such as the Cultural Capability Measurement Tool.5 We fear that, if not carefully interpreted, the study findings have the potential to further complicate and undermine the substantial work — endorsed by the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation and the Department of Health — being undertaken to develop the cultural safety of Australia’s health system.6 It is crucial that in all areas of Australia’s health system, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, we present a reliable, strategically aligned approach consistent with the vision of an Australian health system free of racism and inequality.6 It is important that we continue to work together to harness the energy and commitment of the workforce towards our shared goals. We look forward to the qualitative findings of the research study.

Sophie Hickey · Roianne West

In reply

Siaw‐Teng Liaw · Vicki Wade

To the Editor: Moynihan and colleagues1 make a good case for Australia responding to the complex challenge of reducing the overdiagnosis of clinical disease. However, this challenge should not lead to confusion with the early diagnosis of and the early intervention in preclinical disease, which are the mainstay of secondary prevention. While reducing diagnosis creep and expanding disease definitions are predominantly the realm of the specialist disciplines, primary care is uniquely placed to embrace preclinical disease diagnosis, increasing early detection and intervention, while specialists endorse reducing overdiagnosis, both collaborating in lowering long term costs to the health system. Preclinical disease and its impact are emerging as the logical next challenge. Prediabetes, for example, is almost always present before the onset of diabetes.2,3 Both the American Diabetes Association3 and Diabetes Australia4 have published recommendations on the diagnosis and screening for diabetes and prediabetes. The American Diabetes Association also leads the way in recommending that screening should be considered in children and adolescents who are overweight or obese and who have additional risk factors for diabetes.3 In 2015, the most comprehensive undertaking since Medicare's inception in the 1980s was established to consider how the more than 5700 items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) could be aligned with contemporary clinical evidence and practice and improve health outcomes for patients with clinical disease (tertiary prevention).5 Although, the evidence base around early diagnosis and intervention is relatively recent, it is now opportune for the federal government to initiate a second tier to the MBS Review to consider new MBS items, where appropriate, for the early diagnosis of and early intervention in preclinical disease (secondary prevention). Further, this would align well with the new global awareness and endorsement of lifestyle medicine.6 Reversing the underdiagnosis of preclinical disease would be the perfect partner to reversing the overdiagnosis of clinical disease in delivering better health outcomes for patients, while reducing long term costs to the health system.

Eugen Molodysky

To the Editor: I read with interest the article by Moynihan and colleagues1 and commend the authors on their timely review of this important topic. While the article referred to research that had highlighted concerns about overdiagnosis in relation to several medical and surgical conditions, the only psychiatric condition mentioned was attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The authors referred to the problem of medicalisation as one of the possible drivers of overdiagnosis in one of the figures within the article, but not in the text of the article — medicalisation is the process by which non‐medical problems become defined and treated as disorders. In 2005, the medical expenditure on identified medicalised conditions in the United States was estimated to be about US$77 billion.2 Medicalisation in psychiatry has been a particular concern because of the problem created by ever‐expanding definitions of mental disorders and lowering of diagnostic thresholds.3 This has been well illustrated by the changes in the diagnostic criteria within the successive editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association, now in its fifth edition (DSM‐5). The effect of a change in the DSM diagnostic criteria was reported in 2001: changes from the third edition (DSM‐III) to the fourth edition (DSM‐IV), with an increase of the variety of stressors (events) considered capable of leading to post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), led to a finding that 38% of DSM‐IV PTSD cases resulted from its wider definition.4 In the DSM‐5 the diagnostic criteria for PTSD have been further relaxed, so that “emotional reactions to the traumatic event” are no longer part of the diagnostic criteria. Another example of overdiagnosis in psychiatry is that of adjustment disorder. A 2008 article stated that there are “huge [numbers] of false‐positives for depressive and anxiety disorders because the context of symptoms is not taken into account,” and that the diagnosis of adjustment disorder “seems, by definition, ideally suited to apply to healthy people in dangerous and uncertain circumstances”.5 It is to be hoped that the 7th international Preventing Overdiagnosis conference in 2019 will include a session on overdiagnosis also in psychiatry.

George Mendelson

In reply

Raymond Moynihan · Alexandra L Barratt · Paul P Glasziou

To the Editor: Pharyngitis, a common childhood illness, accounts for around 3% of presentations to general practice in Australia.1 Although usually benign and self‐limiting, group A streptococcus (GAS) pharyngitis, isolated in up to 20% of symptomatic children,2 can lead to infectious and autoimmune sequelae. Despite Australia being a high income country, acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) still cause significant morbidity and mortality in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.3 Prompt treatment of GAS pharyngitis has been shown to reduce the incidence of ARF by two‐thirds in high risk individuals.4 Low risk individuals require supportive management only.5 Clinical diagnosis of GAS pharyngitis is unreliable4 and culture results take time. As such, clinicians must balance the competing priorities of appropriate treatment of patients at high risk of ARF or RHD with prudent antimicrobial stewardship. Clinical practice guidelines play an important role in decision making at both a population and individual level. We undertook a search to identify Australian and New Zealand pharyngitis guidelines and compared these with previously published criteria.6 Nine guidelines were identified. Inconsistences in diagnosis, definition of high risk groups, analgesia, antibiotic rationale, agent, therapy duration, and tonsillectomy indications were observed (Box). Australia's multitude of heterogenic guidelines coupled with the transient workforce in remote Australia, where ARF burden is the highest,7 predispose to management confusion and potential poor patient outcomes, including higher rates of ARF and RHD, and also fail to address the growing worldwide problem of antimicrobial resistance. Australia needs a single national pharyngitis guideline to assist in providing rational, consistent and timely antibiotic treatment to patients at high risk of ARF, while minimising inappropriate antibiotic usage and resistance in individuals at low risk of sequelae. We call for an evidence‐based guideline that includes the following: a clear, succinct approach to diagnosis and management; a definition of individuals at high risk of ARF, and rationale for antibiotic treatment; clear guidance regarding throat culture and point‐of‐care testing for GAS; rationale for first‐ and second‐line empirical antibiotics, with alternatives for penicillin allergy; capacity to adapt management in different clinical settings; and supportive care recommendation including analgesia, tonsillectomy and school exclusion. Box – Summary of selected criteria:6 are criteria addressed by each sore throat guideline? Guidelines NZ HF BPAC NZ CH QLD NSW ICCPG CARPA RHD Aust PCH RCH eTG Number of criteria addressed 6/12 7/12 2/12 10/12 7/12 6/12 10/12 9/12 10/12 Diagnostic criteria × × × ✓ ✓ × ✓ × ✓ Routine throat culture/rapid antigen detection testing ✓ ✓ × ✓ × ✓ ✓ ✓ × Antibiotics to reduce symptoms × ✓ × ✓ × × ✓ × ✓ Antibiotics to prevent complications ✓ ✓ × ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ NZHF = New Zealand Heart Foundation (http://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/shop/heart-healthcare/non-stock-resources/sore-throat-algorithm.pdf); BPAC = Best Practice Advocacy Centre (https://bpac.org.nz/antibiotics/guide.aspx#sore-throat); CH QLD = Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service guidelines (http://www.childrens.health.qld.gov.au/chq/health-professionals/antimicrobial-stewardship/guidelines/ent-infections); NSW ICCPG = New South Wales infants and children clinical practice guidelines (http://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/ActivePDSDocuments/GL2014_021.pdf); CARPA = Central Australian Rural Practitioners Association's standard treatment manual (https://docs.remotephcmanuals.com.au/review/g/manuals2017-manuals/d/20321.html?page=115); RHD Aust = rheumatic heart disease Australian guidelines (https://www.rhdaustralia.org.au/arf-rhd-guideline); PCH = Perth Children's Hospital emergency department guidelines (https://pch.health.wa.gov.au/For-health-professionals/Emergency-Department-Guidelines/Tonsillitis); RCH = Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne guidelines (with support of the Victorian Paediatric Clinical Network) (www.rch.org.au/clinicalguide/guideline_index/Sore_throat); eTG = electronic therapeutic guidelines (https://tgldcdp.tg.org.au/searchAction?appendedInputButtons=sore%20throat). ◆

Adrian J Tarca · Robert M Hand · Rosemary Wyber

To the Editor: Bateson and Black1 do a great service in encouraging clinicians to discuss pre‐conception care with women of reproductive age.1 However, in relation to infection prevention, one area not discussed was cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is the most common infectious cause and the second most common aetiology of all causes of severe congenital malformations.2 Mother to child transmission of CMV can result in prematurity, stillbirth, cerebral palsy and neurodevelopmental delay and is the most common infectious cause of hearing loss.2 Discussions about CMV prevention should ideally commence before pregnancy, as maternal CMV infection in the first trimester poses the greatest risk of harm to the fetus if mother to child transmission occurs. Such discussions should continue throughout pregnancy, as secondary maternal infection with a different strain of CMV can also result in mother to child transmission of virus,2 although the risk per infectious event is lower. Women can adopt simple hygiene strategies to reduce risk of CMV infection and thus reduce mother to child transmission of virus during pregnancy. These recommendations have been published3 and referenced in consensus recommendations2 and other sources.4 Strategies preventing women acquiring CMV (usually from children)3 are acceptable and inexpensive — handwashing, not sharing food or objects covered with children's saliva, not kissing children on the lips and wearing disposable gloves during nappy changes. These strategies reduce the risk of infection before pregnancy and of mother to child transmission during pregnancy;2 they do not affect reactivation of latent virus, although this is associated with lower mother to child transmission. Universal serological screening with CMV IgG to determine previous immunity is not recommended, as congenital CMV can still occur as a result of non‐primary maternal infection and reactivation during pregnancy. Women should be advised to use hygiene strategies regardless of their serological status.2 In Australia, only one in six women who are pregnant know about CMV,5 and only one in ten maternity clinicians routinely discuss CMV prevention with pregnant women.6 It is likely fewer discuss CMV prevention before conception. We encourage clinicians, women considering pregnancy and parents to increase their knowledge about CMV and its prevention.4

Antonia Shand · Pamela Palasanthiran · William D Rawlinson

In reply

Deborah J Bateson · Kirsten I Black