The RACGP has told AHPRA that its draft guidelines on prescribing miss an opportunity to explicitly address conflict of interest in prescribing.
AHPRA’s latest set of guidelines for prescribing competencies have a chance to push the envelope on what constitutes an appropriate prescribing model, according to a new RACGP submission.
The regulator is currently updating the National Prescribing Competencies Framework originally published by NPS MedicineWise, which describes the competencies and expectations for appropriate, safe and effective prescribing.
It is designed to be used across multiple health professions.
Some of the more notable suggested changes were a new definition of scope of practice and a new competency for off-label prescribing.
In its submission to the draft revised framework, the RACGP said it broadly supported updating the framework but identified several potential unintended consequences.
The college called for more clarity around the scope of prescribing competencies and clear guidance on how to address conflicts of interest that may arise when a prescriber has a financial stake in the product they’re prescribing.
It also took aim at the increasing use of telehealth and online business models focused on prescribing specific substances.
Related
Doctors who prescribe medicinal cannabis were used as examples for both conflict of interest and online prescribing.
“Prescribing based on a single phone or video consultation carries greater risks than with a person’s regular GP or face to face consultations,” the submission read.
In response to a question on whether the framework aligned with safe, contemporary and ethical prescribing practices, the RACGP warned against the dangers of fragmented care.
“Patient safety is paramount and best supported by multidisciplinary teams which include a GP, working together to provide coordinated, collaborative and continuous patient care,” the submission said.
“The framework should reinforce the importance of clearly defined roles, appropriate scope of practice, and team-based models of care to support safe and effective prescribing.”
The AMA released its own response to the draft changes last week, which noted concern around what it called the “continued use of non-collaborative prescribing models”.
“The framework can be interpreted as a means of non-medical health professionals engaging in independent assessment for the purpose of making prescribing decisions,” the AMA wrote.
Changes to the framework are expected to be finalised before the end of the calendar year.
