Repeat prescribing policy in New Zealand general practice: making it better
Steven Lillis 1 2 , Liza Lack 11 General Practice and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland Grafton Campus, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand
2 Corresponding author. Email: steven.lillis@outlook.co.nz
Journal of Primary Health Care 12(4) 373-376 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC20098
Published: 22 December 2020
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2020 This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Repeat prescribing is common in New Zealand general practice. Research also suggests that repeat prescribing is a process prone to error. All New Zealand general practices have to comply with requirements to have a repeat prescribing policy, with the details of the policy to be designed by the practice.
AIM: To inform the development of practice policy, research was undertaken with experienced general practitioners to identify and mitigate risk in the process.
METHODS: At the 2019 annual conference of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, a workshop was held with 58 experienced general practitioner participants. The group was divided into six small groups, each with the task of discussing one aspect of the repeat prescribing process. The results were then discussed with the whole group and key discussion points were transcribed and analysed.
RESULTS: Issues identified included: improving patient education on appropriateness of repeat prescribing; having protected time for medicine reconciliation and the task of repeat prescribing; reducing the number of personnel and steps in the process; and clarity over responsibility for repeat prescribing.
DISCUSSION: This research can inform the local development of a repeat prescribing policy at the practice level or be used to critique existing practice policies. Attention was also drawn to the increasing administrative burden that repeat prescribing contributes to in general practice.
Keywords: General practice; prescribing; patient safety; health policy
References
[1] Ministry of Health. Medicines Regulations Act 1984 [Internet]. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 1984. [cited 2020 October 20]. Available from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1984/0143/latest/whole.html[2] Medical Council of New Zealand. Statement on Good Prescribing Practice. [cited 2020 October 20]. Available from: https://www.mcnz.org.nz/our-standards/statements-definitions-and-publications
[3] Avery T, Barber N, Ghaleb M, et al. Investigating the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in general practice: The Practice Study. London: General Medical Council; 2012.
[4] Swinglehurst D, Greenhalgh T, Russell J, Myall M. Receptionist input to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in UK general practice: ethnographic case study. BMJ. 2011; 343 d6788
| Receptionist input to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in UK general practice: ethnographic case study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22053317PubMed |
[5] Price J, Man SL, Bartlett S, et al. Repeat prescribing of medications: a system-centred risk management model for primary care organisations. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017; 23 779–96.
| Repeat prescribing of medications: a system-centred risk management model for primary care organisations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28370904PubMed |
[6] Lillis S, Lord H. Repeat prescribing – reducing errors. J Prim Health Care. 2011; 3 153–8.
| Repeat prescribing – reducing errors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21625665PubMed |
[7] Lillis S, Macklin N, Thorn M, et al. Repeat prescribing safety survey. J Prim Health Care. 2019; 11 243–8.
| Repeat prescribing safety survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32171377PubMed |
[8] Atmore C. General practice evolution in New Zealand: hybridisation in action. J Prim Health Care. 2017; 9 220–4.
| General practice evolution in New Zealand: hybridisation in action.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29530175PubMed |
[9] Cave JA, Phizackerley D. Virtual revolution? Drug Ther Bull. 2020; 58 114
| Virtual revolution?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32563995PubMed |
[10] Ernst & Young. Evaluation of the New Zealand Health Care Home, 2010–2016. Auckland: Ernst & Young; 2017.
[11] Medical Protection Society. Risk alert: Repeat prescribing [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2020 October 20]. Available at: https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/articles/risk-alert-repeat-prescribing
[12] Kumar P. Process mapping – Health Quality and Safety Commission [Internet]. 2015. [cited 2020 October 20]. Available at: https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/Medication-Safety/collaborative/PR/LS1/004-process-mapping-Prem-Kumar.pdf
[13] Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017; 16 1–16.
| Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Deetjen U. European e-prescriptions: benefits and success factors. Cyber Studies Programmme, 2016. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.
[15] Esmaeil Zadeh PE, Tremblay MC. A review of the literature and proposed classification on e-prescribing: functions, assimilation stages, benefits, concerns, and risks. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2016; 12 1–9.
| A review of the literature and proposed classification on e-prescribing: functions, assimilation stages, benefits, concerns, and risks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Mekonnen AB, Abebe TB, McLachlan AJ, Jo-anne EB. Impact of electronic medication reconciliation interventions on medication discrepancies at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016; 16 112
| Impact of electronic medication reconciliation interventions on medication discrepancies at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27549581PubMed |
