Disclaimer; my claim of ‘world’s best’ relies heavily on the supposition that this is also the ‘world’s only’ such video animation.
It introduces the novel concept of embedding a pharmacist within a general practice (in addition to the pharmacy business owner down the road). This in-house pharmacist would consult from the GP’s rooms, and would not sell or dispense medications.
Besides the obvious benefits to patients in terms of fewer medication errors and misadventures, the appeal to me is that the in-house pharmacist has no conflict of interest.
Because they are non-dispensing, there is no gain or loss to them whether a patient takes one more pill or one less. If a vitamin is of no use to you, they’ll say so. These pharmacists don’t have anything to sell – their role is to advise, educate and oversee.
My video was commissioned by academic pharmacists Debbie Rigby and Chris Freeman, and launched at their AACP Consultant Pharmacy annual conference last weekend.
They tell me that around 25 Australian general practices currently have in-house pharmacists.
Let’s get more.
Today’s major report on Australia’s antibiotic prescribing makes fairly grim reading. The Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Australia (AURA) report reveals the following:
- Almost half (46%) the population was prescribed an antibiotic in 2014.
- More than half of patients with colds, flu and respiratory illness who received antibiotics did not need one.
- Acute upper respiratory tract infections (colds) resulted in antibiotic prescription 47% of the time (data taken from a sample of 180 GPs).
- Prescribing rates for sinusitis, bronchitis and middle ear infection massively exceed evidence-based recommendations.
- A fifth of nursing home residents who receive antibiotics have no signs of infection.
- Of the 38% of hospitalised patients who receive antibiotics on any given day, a quarter of prescriptions were inappropriate.
- Of those receiving antibiotics as a preventative measure around the time of their surgery, 40% of prescriptions were inappropriate.
When this sort of stuff hits the medical media, the response of a few doctors is to dig in, defend our position, and blame the messenger.
I pre-empted this with my own response below, which I have just sent out to GPs via my Medical Observer column. The main message is that we must do something to change.
It’s not hard to feel that GPs are under the pump, with rebate freezes and various reports suggesting we are using medical interventions too much or too little. Continue reading
I spend a lot of time highlighting the commercial forces that promote expensive medical interventions. So yesterday, when I read a lead author describe his new guidelines as “the most radical change in the treatment of type 2 diabetes for almost a century,” my first thought was, “why the hype?”
Francesco Rubino, who made this extraordinary claim in Nature, was describing not a new type of intervention, but a new consensus statement which argued we should be funding bariatric (weight-loss) surgery for more people, and at lower degrees of obesity. Yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald article gives further background.
Now, we all agree that bariatric surgery has its place, but what are we to make of this statement which potentially expands that place from a niche into a town square?
First, we can dismiss the hype: a bunch of experts recommending surgery does not constitute a radical change in treatment, much less the biggest in a century. Continue reading
This column marks the end of four years of my writing for the Medical Observer column Humerus. The GP magazine is undergoing a major revamp and there just ain’t no more room for the funny bits.
That’s okay; publication is a fickle business, and I’ll be writing elsewhere…but until I find another willing publisher, I’ll have to stick to serious stuff rather than these enjoyable frivolities.
Herewith: my final humorous musing.
Goodbye, dear fans. I salute both of you (see you Sunday, mum), and also congratulate any others who stumbled upon this Humerus column believing it would deliver a refresher on shoulder anatomy.
After 45 monthly columns from me, and countless more from others, this is the last you will ever read. That’s if you bother finishing it at all—the last paragraph notably runs out of steam. They may say at my eulogy, “He was a funny fellow until quite near the end.”
Vale Humerus, 2003-16. When I look at my fellow columnists over the years—Ron, Pam, Simon and Sarah—I may not have the most columns to my name, but I notice I do have the most letters to my name. A six-letter moniker is an encumbrance in this cutthroat world of column inches. If the Medical Observer bean counters look offshore to replace us, they’ll head-hunt a Bo, Li or Vy.
The last laugh. The brevity of levity. Closure. Continue reading
My 2014 No Advertising Please campaign, while aimed at all doctors, ended up impacting mainly on GPs. The pledge not to see drug reps is more easily fulfilled when one is in autonomous, private medical practice.
However, it is equally important that prescribers working in hospitals choose their medications on the basis of best evidence rather than marketing.
In today’s Medical Journal of Australia (MJA), I co-author a paper with Monash doctors Dr Jessica Dean and Prof Erwin Loh.
We call for a severing of ties between pharmaceutical sponsorship and hospital-based medical education. Continue reading
Dr ‘Grand Master’
Only 10,000 hours away?
With medical jobs so commonplace, I sometimes fantasise about alternative career choices.
Three logicians walk into a bar. Says the bartender, “Would all three of you like a cider?” The first logician replies “I don’t know,” the second also says “I don’t know,” so the third one says “Yes.”
I got that joke immediately, which suggests I might have made a good career logician. Except I doubt such a career exists. Ergo, I’d currently be an unemployed wannabe and unable to afford cider.
Incidentally, my answer to the bartender would still have been correct; not my fault his question conflated the desire to drink with the ability to pay. Never lend money to a logician.
The thing about doctors is, in different circumstances most of us could have chosen other careers. Even interesting ones. I might have chosen music if I hadn’t jammed my left hand in Mrs Bell’s patio door-rail while attempting to escape a piano lesson early. In retrospect, it was my sliding door moment. Continue reading
Apologies to anyone reading this who is not currently listening to me live at my Cochrane Symposium writing workshop (Melbourne, Wed 25 Nov); I’m teaching clever researchers how to write for ordinary folk. I have just dumped a few exercises and links for workshop participants.
If you’ve been falsely lured here via automated social media alerts, and have read this far (second paragraph means you’re a bit curious) please feel free to browse around my other posts. If nothing else, the tedious nature of this one makes the others look brilliant in comparison.
Given the Cochrane theme, I humbly suggest starting with, How Archie Cochrane flipped the medical world on its head
The workshop content starts below: Continue reading
As a career generalist, it’s easy to forget that many friends from med school – even some of the smarter ones – chose to limit themselves to just one organ. Medicine is a broad church, and every church needs an organist.
Don’t get me wrong: these partialists serve a purpose. During my full day dealing with whole people, it can be a relief to involve someone who has the time to tidy up the loose ends.
“We’ve sorted your diabetes, depression, cardiovascular system and digestive tract today, Mrs Jones – would you mind if I left your knees to my assistant? He only does two out of the four limbs, but luckily the two he chose include both of your knees.”
Here, for the busy GP, is my pocket guide to the organists:
Ophthalmologists. They chose the smallest bits of all –just 15 grams worth of human. The back-of-eye sub-partialists complain that the cornea guys just aren’t carrying their weight. Continue reading
Last Friday on the Seven Network’s Today Tonight (TT), an episode on arthritis featured respected GP Dr Robert Menz, who gave a very solid interview – warning about the over-use of opioid medications, and promoting exercise and weight loss.
Dr Menz, speaking on behalf of the RACGP, would have known the TT episode’s byline – Are doctors over-prescribing pain killers for arthritis? – quite reasonably concluding the topic was worth comment. I am also a spokesperson for the RACGP (disclaimer: not at this very moment!) and also happily add my GP voice to various health issues.
However, what the good doctor didn’t know was that the whole episode was a thinly disguised advertorial for the products of two multinational companies, IBSA Biochimique and Bioceuticals (Blackmores).
In fact, virtually the entire footage besides Dr Menz’s interview was cut-and-pasted from two previous TT episodes promoting the exact same two arthritis pills.
Dr Menz’s footage was substituted for the sections in the previous episode, where marketer Andrew Mowbray was given air time to offer his opinion as to how good his product was, and TT journalist Annelise Nielsen helpfully noted the company had just received TGA marketing approval. Talk about lucky timing – the very same month in which arthritis was recognised as an issue worthy of the TT audience. Continue reading