Ethics & Evidence in Medical Debates: The Case of Recombinant Activated Factor VII

"Some sort of fantasy land": A qualitative investigation of appropriate prescribing in cancer care

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Increasing the appropriateness of prescribing has long been a focus of government, non-government, and professional organizations. Progress towards this is made difficult by the fact appropriate prescribing remains inconsistently defined and is the subject of ongoing intense disagreement. In this study, we attempted to understand why this is the case within the context of oncology and haematology.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative empirical analysis of semi-structured interviews with 16 Australian oncologists and haematologists.

RESULTS

We found that oncologists framed appropriate prescribing in terms of the following inter-related, and at times opposed, values: civic mindedness, hope and compassion, realism, and virtue in motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

These values cannot be ranked a priori, and therefore, any definition of appropriate prescribing must be aligned with what communities want from their health system. When one value is privileged over another in any specific context, a compelling argument must be provided to justify the choice. In an era of shared decision making, patient rights, and high-cost medicines, we need to reassess what we mean by appropriate prescribing in cancer care.

Challenges to the validity of using medicine labels to categorize clinical behavior: An empirical and normative critique of "off-label" prescribing

This study aimed to determine whether the label status of a medicine penetrates into the clinical reasoning of Australian medical practitioners and to explore the possible reasons for our findings using semistructured interviews with 14 Australian physicians. The interviews revealed 3 broad catalysts for off-label prescribing. The first of these was lack of awareness or understanding of the regulatory process in general and labels more specifically. The second was the perception that labels are not meaningful guides for clinical practice. The third was the recognition of alternative mechanisms for ensuring safe, rational, and evidence-based prescribing occurs. This research suggests that Australian physicians do not consider whether a medicine is off-label to be a reliable measure of the appropriateness of their prescribing practices. Rather, the legitimacy of prescribing practices is determined by the abilities, skills, and knowledge base of particular prescribers by a culture that encourages and supports evidence-based practice, and safe prescribing. Although labels are of minimal clinical significance, there are real conceptual, practical, and moral problems associated with conflating "good" or "better" practice with "on-label" practice, and "bad" or "worse" practice with off-label prescribing as often occurs. To ascribe greater meaning to the term "off-label" than is warranted can have the unintended consequence of casting suspicion on and making it more difficult for physicians to provide appropriate clinical care. We conclude that labeling can, in some cases, provide assurances to both clinicians and patients that their medications have been demonstrated to be safe and effective, but that clinicians should be able to continue to prescribe responsibly off-label without having any stigma attached to their practice.

Damage control: The modern paradigm

It is more than 20 years since the term ‘Damage control’ was introduced to describe an emerging surgical strategy of abbreviated laparotomy for exsanguinating trauma patients. This strategy of temporisation and prioritisation of physiological recovery over completeness of anatomical repair was associated with improved survival in a subset of patients with combined major vascular and multiple visceral injuries. The ensuing years saw the rapid adoption of these principles as standard of care for massively injured and physiologically exhausted patients. Resuscitation of severely injured patients has changed significantly in the last decade with the emergence of a new resuscitation paradigm termed ‘damage control resuscitation’. Originating in combat support hospitals, damage control resuscitation emphasises the primacy of haemorrhage control while directly targeting the ‘lethal triad’ of coagulopathy, acidosis, and hypothermia. Integral to damage control resuscitation is the appropriate application of damage control surgery and together they constitute the modern damage control paradigm. This review aims to discuss the modern application of damage control resuscitation and damage control surgery and to review the evidence supporting its constituent components, as well as considering deficiencies in current knowledge and areas for future research.