Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

General Practice

Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study

BMJ 2000; 321 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7258.425 (Published 12 August 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;321:425

Rapid Response:

Deceptive Information

Dear Sir

Campbell and colleagues suggest anecdotally that prescribing
indicators may be set to contain costs rather than improve quality.

As the prescribing lead in our practice, I receive regular
communications from our local pharmaceutical advisor amongst which are
graphical representations of our performance as a practice against all the
practices in our area for seven quality indicators of prescribing. There
is something quite motivating to find that you are at the wrong end of a
graph when compared to one’s colleagues. Certainly we have used this
information to good effect at a practice level and have converted a 7%
overspend on our prescribing budget to a 5% underspend (on a drug budget
in excess of £2 million this represents considerable savings).

However, in an environment in which we are encouraged to use evidence
based medicine (1) to assist clinical decision making it seems at best a
little deceptive to receive information that purports to support
improvement and quality whereas in fact its hidden agenda is to contain
costs.

Yours faithfully

Dr Alexander Williams

Refs:
(1) Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB. Evidence based
medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996:312:71-2.

Competing interests: No competing interests

13 September 2000
Alexander Williams
General Practitioner
St Thomas Health Centre, Exeter