Objectives: (1) To determine the extent to which Australian general practit
ioners (GPs) restrict the numbers of agents they prescribe within a drug cl
ass ('personal formularies'); (2) To assess concordance of these drug choic
es with standards based on established guidelines or recognised good prescr
ibing practices; (3) To assess the potential of these measures as indicator
s of the quality of prescribing.
Methods: Australian Health Insurance Commission (HIC) prescription data (19
94-1997) for around 15,400 GPs providing 1500 or more Medicare services per
year were analysed. Measures of an individual GP's use of a personal formu
lary (determined by number of agents) and concordance with prescribing crit
eria based on specified drugs for five classes of commonly prescribed drugs
were derived.
Results: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): GP concordance was
higher with a non-specified personal formulary (any five NSAIDs) than with
a list of specified drugs (five NSAIDs of 'low' or 'medium' risk of gastro
intestinal toxicity), and concordance with both increased over time. In 199
7, around 70% of GPs used five or fewer NSAIDs for 90% of their prescribing
; 47% of GPs had 90% of prescribing from five selected agents. Angiotensin
converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-II receptor antagonists: The intro
duction of new agents appeared to increase the size of the GPs' personal fo
rmularies, and concordance with defined standards decreased over time.
Antibacterial agents: Concordance with a specified drug standard (nine drug
s listed in the Australian Antibiotic Guidelines) increased substantially o
ver time but was largely due to increased prescribing of two heavily promot
ed drugs.
Beta-blocking agents: Over time, GPs restricted most prescribing to two age
nts, atenolol and metoprolol. Calcium channel blockers: GPs did not appear
to restrict prescribing of these drugs; most GPs prescribed all five agents
available.
Conclusions: Australian GPs use 'personal formularies'. Formulary size vari
es with the drug class, can change over time as new agents become available
, and its contents can be influenced by promotional activities. Prescribing
standards based on numbers of drugs used may not always reflect rational p
rescribing choices. Criteria based on specified drugs provide more rigorous
prescribing standards, but may give a misleading picture of prescribing qu
ality in the absence of information on patients and the indications for tre
atment. Personal formulary measures are potentially useful prescribing indi
cators but need to be carefully defined and interpreted. GPs should be enco
uraged to identify their personal formularies and review the drugs included
in them.