Repeat prescribing management - a cause for concern?

Background. No existing studies of repeat prescribing management have been carried out on statistically adequate samples permitting an extrapolation o f results with regard to the population of general practitioners (GPs). Aim. To provide adequate regional evidence of the quality of repeat prescri bing management for the profession and its administrators, and to test a sc oring system for quality assurance in repeat prescribing practice. Method. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered by one observer to a statistically representative population sample of Northern Ireland's gen eral practices to investigate the extent to which they adopted recommended procedures for the management of repeat prescribing. Responses to 26 of the se questions were used to score the quality of management The subjects were a random sample of 57 practices stratified for number of partners, geograp hical area, and fundholding status. Results. The main outcome measures were the percentage adoption of recommen ded procedures at the time of repeat prescription issue and at the review c onsultation, use of computing for repeat prescribing and the effects of fun dholding; and qualify assurance scores. During issue of repeats, essential checks are often omitted; the potential of computerization for improving ma nagement is often not realized. At review consultation, the opportunities f or quality assurance are often missed. Fundholders manage repeat prescribin g significantly better than non-fundholders, but in neither group is the me an management scare exemplary. Conclusion. We have identified and quantified serious deficiencies in repea t prescribing management in a representative sample large enough to permit extrapolation to the regional population of GPs. In response, we have devis ed guidelines that GPs might use to address this problem. We have tested an d proved a scoring system for repeat prescribing evaluation.