Search

Mandatory reporting of impaired doctors is compulsory in Australasia. Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency guidelines for notification claim high benchmark though the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians suggest they still obstruct doctors seeking help. Western Australia excludes mandatory reporting of practitioner-patients. This study examines reporting, consequences and international experiences with notification. Depressed doctors avoid diagnosis and treatment, fearing consequences, yet are more prone to marital problems, substance dependence and needing psychotherapy. South African research confirms isolation of impaired doctors and delayed seeking help with definable characteristics of those at risk. New Zealand data acknowledge: errors occur; questionable contribution from mandatory reporting; issues concerning competence assessment; favouring reporting to senior colleagues or self-intervention to compliance with mandatory reporting. UK found an anaesthetist guilty of professional misconduct for not reporting and sanctioned doctors regarding Harold Shipman. Australians are reluctant to report, fearing legalistic intrusion into care. Australian research confirmed definable characteristics for doctors with psychiatric illness or alcohol abuse. Exposure to legal medicine evokes personal disenchantment for doctors involved. Medicine poses barriers for impaired doctors. Spanish and UK doctors do not use general practitioners and may have suboptimal care. US and European doctors self-medicate using samples. US drug-dependent doctors also prescribe for spouses. Junior doctors are losing empathy with the profession. UK doctors favour private care, avoiding public scrutiny. NZ and Brazil created specific services for doctors, which appear effective. Mandatory reporting may be counterproductive requiring reappraisal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After 9 years, Austroads has published new guidelines for fitness to drive. The guidelines have a preamble, which includes a legal disclaimer denying any culpability for those who designed the guidelines. They also warn of the legal responsibility for health professionals to satisfy their obligations, the need to be current with both relevant medical and legal expectations and if in doubt to seek guidance from Medical Defence Organisations. The guidelines are divided into Parts A and B, with A providing broad overview and background information while B deals with specific entities, such as blackouts, epilepsy or sleep disorders. This paper examines the guidelines and offers an appraisal of their content, their relevance to health practitioners and an assessment of their role in assisting to improve road safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and multiple sclerosis (MS) has been described. The current study was undertaken to explore this association further. Personal records of patients with IBD and MS were reviewed. In addition, a search of medical records at a large tertiary teaching hospital in Sydney was carried out for the years 1996–2006. Four patients (three women and one man) with both ulcerative colitis and MS were identified. MS did not occur in any of our patients with Crohn’s disease. The association between ulcerative colitis and MS appears to be real and may help identify common factors involved in the cause of these two diseases. No association was found in this study between MS and Crohn’s disease, sparking consideration why such difference should occur. With the increasing use of biological therapies in IBD and their reported propensity to cause demyelination, recognition of an association is all the more important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the decision in the Gillet Case it may no longer be safe to rely on the Austroads guidelines when considering fitness to drive. This paper examines the case and its implications. Although the Guidelines claimed ‘... the identification and application of world best-practice...’, they were disregarded by the court in Gillet. Both expert witnesses testified that on disclosure of epilepsy the accused would have been endorsed as fit for a licence application to the Roads & Traffic Authority, on the basis of 10 years of only nocturnal seizures, in accordance with the guidelines. The Court rejected this evidence and interpreted failure to disclose epilepsy as recognition of perceived risk and the previously undiagnosed sleep apnoea as the basis for that risk, despite being diagnosed after the accident. There needs to be greater certainty in the application of the guidelines, with legislative intervention and licenses should display a bold statement advising drivers of their responsibility to notify authorities of illnesses that could potentially affect driving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Austroads Guidelines for fitness to drive were promulgated in 2003. Epilepsy was one of the conditions included and this paper reports results of a survey of Australian neurologists regarding opinions and practices relevant to the guidelines. Methods: The survey was developed, piloted and Human Research Ethics Committee approved. Members of the Australian Association of Neurologists received three mailings and results were analysed. Results: Almost 70% of 236 surveyed indicated assessment of epilepsy and driving with <9% not doing so – establishing ∼77% response for eligible neurologists. Most questions achieved 90% response. Almost 90% respondents assessed epilepsy and 70% found the guidelines helpful. Seventy-seven per cent endorsed doctor assessors although half discounted General Practitioners as insufficiently knowledgeable and half advocated that only neurologists evaluate potential drivers with epilepsy. Most respondents supported reporting recalcitrant patients; yet only <30% did so. Three-quarters favoured licences carrying a warning to self-report and two-thirds felt that product information should identify driving implications. Although many questions attracted expected responses, the surprise was the large undecided numbers, which were greater than expected. Neurologists were more lenient than prescribed by the guidelines with neither consensus for controlled epilepsy nor mandatory driving restrictions. Conclusion: Respondents supplied predictable answers regarding ideal circumstances; yet most did not report recalcitrant patients. Most claimed to adhere to the guidelines and yet advocated more lenient driving restrictions that may allow preventable accidents. There was agreement between neurologists and guidelines for more rigourous restrictions for commercial drivers although again neurologists were more lenient. There is need for prospective research on epilepsy and driving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractGuidelines on fitness to drive were released by AUSTROADS and the National Road Transport Commission in September 2003. No recognised legal medical authority was cited. There are three parts in the document: (i) background information, (ii) specific medical conditions and (iii) appendices of relevant documents and contacts. This paper analyses the relevance of the guidelines for physicians and notes that the disclaimer exonerates its authors from potential repercussions. Guidelines for both private and commercial drivers are combined in the document and the basis for such delineation is defined. A lack of universal Australian standards with no State indicating the driver's responsibility to report changes in health standards on the issued licences is confirmed by the guidelines. Not all States indemnify physicians for reporting contrary to patients’ wishes, while South Australia and the Northern Territory mandate reporting those at risk. Much of the language is patronizing, expecting‘... conciliatory and supportive ...’ behaviour even with recalcitrant patients. No allowance is made for patients who may not fulfil the guidelines but whom the doctor may consider fit to drive. Ambiguity regarding responsibility to report, as identified in the background section, may leave the doctor vulnerable for not reporting a patient who subsequently may cause injury. Attempt is made to differentiate the role of the specialist from the family general practitioner (GP), advocating specialists for commercial drivers, although this is largely left to the discretion of the GP. There is an implied onus on doctors to report all patients with the conditions under review. Some diagnoses, such as syncope, are discussed in different sections with application of conflicting limitations. Inappropriate language, such as reference to a seizure being‘... an isolated non-epileptiform event ...’, or withdrawal of medications failing to be restricted to anti-epileptic medications confounds interpretation. Some sections, such as that on sleep and epilepsy, are effectively analysed, while illnesses such as dementia are considered superficially. The guidelines are an attempt to assess fitness to drive, but contain serious flaws and provide limited information upon which to base decisions. Ambiguous language complicates application of the guidelines and places the health care professional at risk, despite a disclaimer protecting its authors. (Intern Med J 2005; 35: 364–368) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor in response to the article "Changed constitution without change in brand name "the risk of generics in epilepsy" in a 2012 issue is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from Beran R.G. the author of the article "Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) approach to Fellows in difficulty" in the February 4, 2015 issue is presented.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Prolactinoma: are dopamine agonists still first choice," by C. M. Ogilvie and S. R. Milsom in the May 29, 2011 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive: What Do Public Hospital Doctors Know and Think," by E. M. Shanahan, R. M. Sladek and P. Phillips, published in a previous issue of this periodical.

A letter to the editor is presented which discusses the legal imperatives in treating severe stroke.

Background: The ABCD2 stroke risk score is recommended in national guidelines for stratifying care in transient ischaemic attack (TIA) patients, based on its prediction of early stroke risk. We had become concerned about the score accuracy and its clinical value in modern TIA cohorts. Methods: We identified emergency department-diagnosed TIA at two hospitals over 3 years (2004-2006). Cases were followed for stroke occurrence and ABCD2 scores were determined from expert record review. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV) of moderate-high ABCD2 scores were determined. Results: There were 827 indexed TIA diagnoses and record review was possible in 95.4%. Admitted patients had lower 30-day stroke risk ( n= 0) than discharged patients ( n= 7; 3.1%) ( P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in proportion of strokes between those with a low or moderate-high ABCD2 score at 30 (1.2 vs 0.8%), 90 (2.0 vs 1.9%) and 365 days (2.4 vs 2.4%) respectively. At 30 days the sensitivity, specificity and PPV of a moderate-high score were 57% (95% confidence interval (CI) 25.0-84.2), 32.2% (95% CI 29.1-35.6) and 0.75% (95% CI 0.29-1.91) respectively. Conclusions: Early stroke risk was low after an emergency diagnosis of TIA and significantly lower in admitted patients. Moderate-high ABCD2 scores did not predict early stroke risk. We suggest local validation of ABCD2 before its clinical use and a review of its place in national guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]