Talk:Medical prescription

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Self-prescribed medication?

Don't know if this is relevant enough to include in the article, but I was wondering if an MD can write a prescription for his or herself. Are there any limitations as to what can be self-prescribed?

My Jurisdiction (New Zealand), makes it clear that although legal, this is unwise and may produce questions about a doctor's practice. The medical council (regulatory body) has a policy that strongly discourages Doctors from prescribing for themselves and their families, and points out that if they do, then their care must be of the same standard as care of any other patient in terms of keeping notes, appropriate knowledge and experience etc. Egmason 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The paper vs the drugs & regions

I removed the following section from this article because the article is about the piece of paper that is the prescription, not about the prescription drugs themselves. Prescription drugs is a much larger subject. Samw 03:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

==National Health Service Prescriptions==
In England a patient visits a doctor (usually a General practitioner in the first instance) who is able to prescribe medicines. Each item on the prescription is liable to a prescription charge of £6.40 (as of April 2004). Those requiring regular prescriptions may make a saving by purchasing a pre-payment certificate which covers the cost of all prescriptions required for four months (at a cost of £33.40) or the year (at a cost of £91.80).
The money is used to help fund the National Health Service.
The devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales were examining, in 2004, proposals to scrap the charge and provide free prescriptions for all.


I disagree with your move of the content I added to prescription to prescription drug. It mentions no drugs in particular. It is more about charging. How can we resolve this amicably? Assuming you still feel you were right to move it, who should we ask to decide? I do not feel particularly passionate about this. But I know that, as a British national, if I were looking for more information on my prescription I would look under the article of that name, not prescription drug. --bodnotbod 12:20, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

The issue is that "prescription" can mean different things: the piece of paper, the drugs themselves or the whole system of controlling drugs. I don't have a strong opinion either on whether to include this material. I moved it because the "medical prescription" article itself is already quite long. Perhaps "medical prescription" itself could be a index/disambiguation page that links to "medical prescription - the document" for the current contents; "prescription drugs" and "prescription practices" for your material? If we're looking for a second opinion, Kpjas contributed to the original article. Samw 15:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Cheers. I've asked him to take a look. I take your point. I would be tempted to start a third article if another nationality wades in with material along my lines about their country. At the moment it seems a bit overkill to have 3 articles. Let's see what Kpjas says. --bodnotbod 15:22, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

People I really don't feel entitled to be a judge in your debate. I think you have done a good job and this helpful information stays within Wikipedia. That's a good thing. My comment: it would be fine to include and compare prescription systems and regulations in other countries (healthcare systems).

The matter where the information is going to be placed seems to me relatively unimportant.

Best wishes,
Kpjas 08:36, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh well... I leave it as it is, mainly because I'm very tired right now  ;o) If somebody else comes along who feels it should be changed, they'll go ahead and do it I guess. --bodnotbod 14:06, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Origination of Rx?

So where did this term come from, and what is its literal meaning? Thanks.

See the second paragraph under format and definition; there are several explanations. I'm not aware of a definitive answer. Samw 00:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mg/ug mixup

For the mixup between microgram and milligram, I couldn't find a reference for "unbelievably, deaths have resulted from pharmacists blindly following such a misreading". If you have a reference, I would love to put such a dramatic statement back in. Samw 02:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a few references. I have a bit of a flu, and was about to go sleep, but feel free to add them to the article or I will tomorrow. [1] [2]. I couldn't find a specific cite for deaths resulting from that error, but [3] refers to medical error as a leading cause of death (though presumably fairly little of that is due to perscription misreading). I guess there's no really sold proof, sorry. Feel free to leave the remark out, or tone it down to "this is likely to cause potentially fatal misunderstandings..." Pakaran 02:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added compromise commentary back in Samw 14:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "The symbol "Rx" meaning "prescription" is a transliteration of a symbol resembling a capital R with a cross on the diagonal (℞)." doesn't make any sense to me. The last symbol looks like an upside-down square U. It is not a diagonal. What is it supposed to be? 71.32.109.22 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how would you write rx for 90 percocet at 1 to 2 tablets per every 6 10 hrs as needed for pain

Percocet 1-2 tab every 6-10hrs prn for pain, mitte90
The words 'every' & 'for' are perhaps redundant, 'mitte' is often abbreviated to just 'm' or just enclosing the quantity within a circle, and sometimes the number of tablets ('tab') is abbreviated to a series of 'T' (latter abbreviation is discouraged as easy to cause confusion). Hence Rx can be abbreviated to:
Percocet T-TT 6-10hrs prn pain (90) - David Ruben Talk 03:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lot's of good stuff to think about in this prescription. I bet most pharmacists would fill it as written and most patients would use it more or less as intended. Still, I would take a different route:

  1. As David says, the old fashioned lower case Roman numerals (above represented by "T-TT") are a source of confusion and are now dis-preferred in favor of Arabic numerals.
  2. Percocet is a brand name for a generic combination of acetaminophen and oxycodone. For philosophical and cost-containment reasons, I avoid brand names.
  3. This drug comes in multiple strengths, so the above scripts could not be filled without a call back from the pharmacist.
  4. Abbreviations are a major source of confusion, so I avoid "prn" and "po" and especially "qd."
  5. The route is a required element in all prescriptions, although the pharmacist will often deduce it from the preparation.
  6. Ranges on frequency (6-10 hours) are confusing as they imply that the patient should take at least 1 every 10 hours. "As needed" covers the idea well enough.
  7. Refills should always be specified even if none are desired or allowed by law.
  8. "mitte" is not a phrase I've seen. Is it German?

I would write:

acetaminophen 325 mg / oxycodone 10 mg
1-2 tabs by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain
dispense 90
no refills

Finally, have we just helped some criminal falsify a prescription for a controlled substance? Ben 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • My thoughts precisely. --Younmm23 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPO

Are there any Latin experts out there? What does "NPO" stand for? I've seen:

  • nil per os
  • non per os
  • nihil per orem
  • nil per oris
  • nulla per os

All translate to English as "nothing by mouth" but it would be good to get the Latin right. Thanks! Samw 15:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

But irrelevant to article on prescribing, as not taking anything by mout does not form part of any prescribing instruction abbreviation (but will of course be an abbreviation in teh medical record, sign placed above patient's bed etc). David Ruben Talk 12:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
nil per os, per os Tkjazzer 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
why isn't NPO listed? Tkjazzer 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re List Abbreviations

This article is about prescriptions, yet the list abbreviations includes terms never found on a prescription (at least none I have ever seen) but rather in the medical notes. Examples are CHF,GI,GU,NKA,SOB,URI,UTI,VS,WBC. Would these be better moved to a new article on medical abbreviations ? David Ruben Talk 03:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That this article has pretensions to a complete list of prescription abbreviations is ludicrous. I have in front of me a 470-page book of such abbreviations that does not claim to be complete. - Montréalais 06:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's absurd to call that a complete list. It's also extremely arrogant and American-centric. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't this material be merged with the existing article List of medical abbreviations? Ben 15:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that abbreviations on prescriptions are a subset and possibly different than those on general medical reports. Note also that section has been cleaned up since the discussion from a year ago. Samw 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Regulation "Exhibits"

These sections should I believe be deleted, although being bold resulted in a revertion. My reasons in increasing importance are:

  • This is a worldwide encyclopaedia, not just US-centric. This is obviously not an absolute contraindication for including a specific item, but it is worth remembering to try to keep aricles "balanced"
  • Choice of the word "Exhibit" is troubling - wikipedia is not a legal court for protagonists to present their "exhibits" of evidence. Instead wikipedia may present a few choice examples to illustrate points being made.
  • With only 5 exhibits given, it is hardly applicable to even most Americans; i.e. those that live in the other 45 states.
  • However the main problems are that it is just awful encyclopedia making:
    • It is incomprehensible (to the majority) legal-speak & listing of regulation rules, rather than this a general encyclopaedia's summarisation of knowledge. So if the purpose of these "Exhibits" is to add to the article specific information, then I think this should be done by a clear summary in general English. As an example of how other articles do this, see Murder#The United States which gives a clear explanation.
    • Verification & Citing - if however the "exhibits" are being provided more as material to which discussion in the main article may refer to, in order to verify (as this revert comment suggests), then wikipedia need not reproduce the material but rather merely provide citation details within a footnote. David Ruben Talk 13:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As an example of this, Exhibit C is referred to in the text as an example of regulation setting out "... the size of the piece of paper - see Exhibit C paragraph 10" and also "... security measures may be mandated by law - see Exhibit C for sample legal specifications". Yet Exhibit C section starts, as they all do, with a reference for its own source [4] (this link nolonger seems to exist, after quick search refound as this one). So why not in the text have used:

"... the size of the piece of paper.[1]"
"... security measures may be mandated by law.[1]"

and then in a Footnotes & References section have included the desired citation details:

1 Indiana State Board of Pharmacy. Rule 34. Security Features for Prescriptions. Indiana Professional Licensing Agency.

David Ruben Talk 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Didn't mean to be rude; I thought you were done with the deletions and left the article in an inconsistent state. Reverting seemed the quickest fix. Yes, I'm fine with any reasonable changes. When I added these exhibits 3 years ago there were no established conventions for references and certainly none of the templates in Wikipedia today. These examples were readily available on the net at the time; if a more representative, international selection is available now, by all means use them. On the topic of descriptions versus examples, I'm a big fan of examples, especially real-life examples. Descriptions are needed to make the explanation generically applicable, but there's nothing like specifics. Finally, I'm not an American, never lived in the US and am not in the medical professional. That said, I don't think articles should be "dumbed down" for a general audience. I do agree progressive disclosure should apply to make the article as accessible as possible. Wikipedia has articles on the most obscure technical subjects (c.f. voigt notation) and there's no reason why this article (or a refactored article) can't covered legal details of prescriptions in gory detail. Samw 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for comments, yes I think I too may have acted similarly if positions reversed :-) Certainly don't intend for "dumbing down" - I'm discussing issues of encyclopedia layout and certainly not of article/subject description, which I think is good in this article. All of description re features that get specified (form size, security measures, prescription information, patient details, pharmacist handling) should be included. It is just that having described a particular feature, the example given (as required by WP:Cite and WP:Verify) can be provided now by linking to a footnote that cites a source and provides a relevant web link (as is possible for all 5 'Exhibits'). I appreciate the problems prior to footnotes, external links and citation templates being introduced into wikipedia - must have made citing sources very hard to have to find, select & copy appropriate segments and markup accordingly :-) David Ruben Talk 03:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I, too, dislike the word "Exhibit" being used in this context. And I agree it would be far better dealt with as footnotes rather than copy and pasting in the actual text.
Above comment posted by User:Sarah Ewart 03:01, 16 April 2006
Yes, I know it's policy to sign talk page comments and I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've ever forgotten to do it. Sorry. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split out Appendix 1?

It might be more convenient to split out Appendix 1 into a subsidiary article. This would be partially to facilitate linking to it from the Latin medical phrases category, such that people looking for the translations of these abbreviations don't have to find this page. It seems inelegant to link to the main article from the category page. What do you think? Octopod 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

hi

Is splitting out such related content common in Wikipedia? I haven't seen much of that. My only concern is whether or not it would it make it more difficult to find the Appendix if it were moved? I guess if linked prominently it wouldn't hurt. ---J-Mac

  • I recommend splitting out appendix 1 and linking it for better categorization and a direct link to the talbe instead of linking to a long article when only really wanting to link to the table. Tkjazzer 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globalize tag

There's plenty this can apply to, and the article does have a very strong US flavour (flavor?) but one little thing that doesn't often get mentioned is that the abbreviation "Rx" is not in everyday colloquial use in the UK. I don't know about within the medical profession, but if you wrote "Rx drugs" you'd get a lot of blank looks from the general population. 86.136.250.133 04:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but Rx is widely used in pharmacies and healthcare companies and by doctors in the UK, myself working for one at the moment. Josh 22:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ValiumDAWAd.png

Image:ValiumDAWAd.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change redirect?

I'm not sure how to change it, or even if I can, but I think that prescription medicine should redirect to Prescription drugs rather than Medical prescription.58.104.18.126 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for flagging. Samw (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)