Validity of prescribing indicators for assessing quality of antibiotic use in Australian general practice.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the validity of a set of European quality indicators for assessing antimicrobial prescribing in Australian General Practice. METHODS: A modified UCLA/RAND appropriateness method was used to assess the validity of 30 antimicrobial prescribing indicators. An expert panel of 12 general practitioners scored the validity of each indicator for measuring quality in Australian general practice. Four quality domains were considered: monitoring antibiotic resistance, benefit to individual patients, value for money and value to policymakers. Panel members were also asked to comment on the relevance to the Australian context and proposed benchmarks for each indicator. KEY FINDINGS: All panel members were in agreement regarding the validity of each indicator in each of the specified domains with exception of the indicator assessing the use of systemic antibiotics for pneumonia. The majority of the indicators and their associated benchmarks were considered valid for assessing quality in Australian General Practice, however, there were differences regarding the quality domain that each indicator was considered valid for. Monitoring quality considering individual patient benefit was the most problematic domain with respect to validity. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the validity of 30 European indicators for assessing quality of antimicrobial prescribing in general practice in a non-European setting and provides guidance regarding acceptable benchmarks for the indicators. With international concerns regarding misuse of antibiotics and global interest in prescribing quality, valid evidence-based antimicrobial prescribing indicators and associated benchmarks are an essential tool for assessing prescribing quality.

A national census of medicines use: a 24-hour snapshot of Australians aged 50 years and older.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the current use of conventional and complementary medicines in Australians aged ≥ 50 years. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional postal survey sent to a random sample of 4500 Australians aged ≥ 50 years between June 2009 and February 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of medicines use, reasons for medicines use and sources of medicines. RESULTS: Response rate was 37.3%. Medicines use was very common; 87.1% of participants took one or more medicines and 43.3% took five or more in the previous 24 hours. Complementary medicines were used by 46.3% of participants, 87.4% of whom used both conventional and complementary medicines. The most commonly used medicines were antihypertensive agents (43.2% of participants), natural marine and animal products including fish oil and glucosamine (32.4%) and lipid-lowering agents (30.4%). Doctors recommended 79.3% of all medicines and 93.0% of conventional medicines. Pharmacists commonly recommended occasional medicines (ie, as needed), while friends, family and media most often influenced use of complementary medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The use of multiple medicines is common and higher than reported in the 1995 National Health Survey. Today, much medicines use is to prevent future disease by influencing risk factors. High levels of polypharmacy highlight the need to support the safe and effective use of medicines in the community. Although doctors recommend or prescribe most medicines, self-directed medication use is common. This highlights the need for consumer access to accurate information and strategies to improve health literacy about medicines.