Geoffrey Spurling1, Peter Mansfield. 1. Discipline of General Practice, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia. g.spurling@uq.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Interaction between pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) and general practitioners (GPs) may have an adverse impact on GP prescribing and therefore may be ethically questionable. This study aimed to evaluate the interactions between PSRs and GPs in an Australian general practice, and develop and evaluate a policy to guide the interaction. METHODS: Doctors' prescribing, diaries, practice promotional material and samples were audited and a staff survey undertaken. After receiving feedback, the staff voted on practice policy options. The resulting policy was evaluated 3 and 9 months. RESULTS: Prior to the intervention, GPs spent on average 40 min/doctor/month with PSRs. There were 239 items of promotional material in the practice and 4660 tablets in the sample cupboard. These were reduced by 32% and 59%, respectively, at 3 months after policy adoption and the reduction was sustained at 9 months. Vioxx was the most common drug name in promotional material. Staff adopted a policy of reduced access to PSRs including: reception staff not to make appointments for PSRs or accept promotional material; PSRs cannot access sample cupboards; GPs wishing to see PSRs may do so outside consulting hours. At 3 and 9 months, most staff were satisfied with the changes. Promotional items/room were not significantly reduced at 3 months (-4.0 items/room ; 95% CI -6.61 to -1.39; p = 0.066) or 9 months (-2.63 items/room; 95% CI -5.86 to 0.60; p = 0.24). Generic prescribing significantly increased at 3 months (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.86; p = 0.0027) and 9 months (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.82; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: There was a marked reduction in interactions with PSRs with majority staff satisfaction and improved prescribing practices. The new policy will form part of the practice's orientation package. Reception staff give PSRs a letter explaining the policy. It is hoped that the extra 40 min/doctor of consulting time translates into more time with patients and time to evaluate more independent sources of drug information.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Interaction between pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) and general practitioners (GPs) may have an adverse impact on GP prescribing and therefore may be ethically questionable. This study aimed to evaluate the interactions between PSRs and GPs in an Australian general practice, and develop and evaluate a policy to guide the interaction. METHODS: Doctors' prescribing, diaries, practice promotional material and samples were audited and a staff survey undertaken. After receiving feedback, the staff voted on practice policy options. The resulting policy was evaluated 3 and 9 months. RESULTS: Prior to the intervention, GPs spent on average 40 min/doctor/month with PSRs. There were 239 items of promotional material in the practice and 4660 tablets in the sample cupboard. These were reduced by 32% and 59%, respectively, at 3 months after policy adoption and the reduction was sustained at 9 months. Vioxx was the most common drug name in promotional material. Staff adopted a policy of reduced access to PSRs including: reception staff not to make appointments for PSRs or accept promotional material; PSRs cannot access sample cupboards; GPs wishing to see PSRs may do so outside consulting hours. At 3 and 9 months, most staff were satisfied with the changes. Promotional items/room were not significantly reduced at 3 months (-4.0 items/room ; 95% CI -6.61 to -1.39; p = 0.066) or 9 months (-2.63 items/room; 95% CI -5.86 to 0.60; p = 0.24). Generic prescribing significantly increased at 3 months (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.86; p = 0.0027) and 9 months (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.82; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: There was a marked reduction in interactions with PSRs with majority staff satisfaction and improved prescribing practices. The new policy will form part of the practice's orientation package. Reception staff give PSRs a letter explaining the policy. It is hoped that the extra 40 min/doctor of consulting time translates into more time with patients and time to evaluate more independent sources of drug information.
Authors: Christoph L Lassen; Kirstin Fragemann; Tobias Klier; Nicole Meyer; Bernhard M Graf; Christoph H R Wiese Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Geoffrey K Spurling; Peter R Mansfield; Brett D Montgomery; Joel Lexchin; Jenny Doust; Noordin Othman; Agnes I Vitry Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 11.069