Showing posts with label Quality issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quality issues. Show all posts

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Mediocre students becoming doctors, New Sunday Times, 2011/02/20 By P. Selvarani

Mediocre students becoming doctors

New Sunday Times, 2011/02/20
By P. Selvarani


EVERYONE knew she was a mediocre student, yet Lina (not her real name) was bent on pursuing a career in medicine.

Armed with her not so spectacular Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia results of weak credits in Biology, Chemistry, and a pass in Physics and Additional Maths, she applied to do medicine in several of the local public and private universities.

Her applications were rejected. But Lina was determined to be a doctor.

On her insistence, her family enrolled her at a local medical college which offered preparatory courses to do medicine in several South Asian and East Asian countries.

Despite acknowledging that her results were not up to the mark, the college took her in as a student and made her re-sit her SPM science subjects.

Within seven months, she completed her pre-medical course and Lina is now pursuing her first year of medical studies in a relatively unknown university in Bangladesh.

Stories like Lina's are not isolated. The pathway to that "elusive" medical degree seems to be getting easier, even for those who don't meet the standards.

Over the last 10 years, Malaysia has seen a mushrooming of private medical colleges to meet the increasing number of high-achieving school leavers who fail to secure the limited medical seats available in our public universities.

At last count, there were 26 public and private universities and colleges offering medical degrees.

While the majority of these universities and colleges impose strict entry requirements, including having distinctions or strong credits in Science subjects at A-Levels, some are a little more accommodating in their pre-entry qualifications.

Many of the smaller colleges offer foundation courses in medicine for those who do not have the minimum entry requirement of strong credits in Science subjects and Mathematics. Students from these colleges go on to pursue a medical degree in lesser known foreign universities, usually in Asia and eastern Europe.

What worries the medical fraternity, and Malaysians in general, is the quality of doctors the less established medical colleges are churning out.

As Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) president Dr David Quek pointed out in the December issue of the MMA Bulletin "it's not just the medical degree from 'any' university, but the prestige and the quality of the medical university or college that truly matters".

The MMA has reason to be concerned as recent reports have indicated that many housemen, including those from local universities and colleges, are so inept that they cannot perform even simple procedures that medical aides, such as nurses, can do.

Dr Quek stresses that the government's goal of trying to achieve a doctor-patient ratio of 1:400 by 2020 is "way too fast and too soon", cautioning that it won't be long before the country faces not just a glut of doctors "but also a possible erosion of standards", due to the insufficient infrastructure and training and supervising personnel to cater to the influx of medical graduates.

A doctor who has been practising for more than 20 years concurs that standards have dropped quite drastically.

"Now, some of these housemen do not even know how to insert an intravenous drip or take a patient's blood pressure or take a proper case history... and these are basics every medical student needs to know."

He adds that when pre-entry requirement standards are lowered, then the industry would eventually churn out sub-standard doctors.

He says even when he was studying in India in the 80's, he knew of students who did not make the grade but were offered seats in some lesser known medical colleges after paying huge capitation fees.

"Some of these students who entered the university a few years before me, had still not completed their studies when I graduated. Some took up to 10 years to complete their medical degree which most of us did within seven years. One wonders how competent a doctor they would be."

He says because of the large number of medical graduates and limited number of teaching hospitals, many were not gaining enough experience during their housemanship.

"As housemen, we used to work 15 to 20 hours daily and if we were on call, it could even be 36 hours. But I am all the better for it as I was able to serve in various hospitals in Kuala Lumpur, Sabah and Terengganu and gained wide clinical experience as we were expected to do everything," he adds.

Read more: Mediocre students becoming doctors http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/20spmd/Article/#ixzz1EUHQ1aaq

--------------ooooo00000ooooo------------------

Readers' comments (2)
user
A.M Ali
 
Hello, I'm a 4th year Malaysian medical student currently studying in India.

In my opinion,

MMC and the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) need to further evaluate these "Pre-Medical/Foundation" programs offered by private colleges and Universities in Malaysia in view of the highlighted article above.

Among the things that need to be addressed include whether these programs are on-par with the standardized and well-recognized pre-university programs such as STPM/A-levels and whether indiscriminate intake of students even with mediocre/poor SPM results are done.

These "Pre-Medical/Foundation" programs are seen as "backdoor" or "short-cut" entry into medical programs.

Mediocre students are attracted to such programs because the low entry requirements and faster duration of completion.

Compared to STPM/A-levels and other well-established programs, these "Pre-Medical/Foundation" programs are not standardized and differ in the syllabus, duration and depth of study from one IPTS to another.

Some of these "Pre-medical/foundationn" programs are so lacking in depth of study and syllabus that later on they produce sub-par medical students with lack of understanding in the advanced sciences compared to medical students who went through the standard pre-university programs such as STPM/A-levels.

This problem needs to be addressed by MOHE and MMC.

Thank you.


user
Ceegee
 
Poor academic students don't translate to bad doctors. Many brilliant students turn out to be doctors with bad bed side manners and have poor communication skills. In the mid 70's when I studied medicine in Sydney, science was not even a prerequisite for entering medical school. That's what the first preparatory year is for.

Only students with the passion for medicine should be encouraged, not those who can score well at exams but have no passion for the profession, they only enter medical school for the prestige or by the insistance of parents. These are the ones who will turn out to be substandard practitioners.

Read more: Mediocre students becoming doctors http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/20spmd/Article/##ixzz1EXe80qA3

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Sunday Star: Quality first, not quantity... By Dr MILTON LUM

Quality first, not quantity

By Dr MILTON LUM

Sunday Star, 09 Jan 2011

Recent media focus on the number of housemen and the attitudes of some of them raises questions about the quality of medical education, and by extension, the quality of healthcare patients will be receiving in the future.

ONE of the basic principles taught to all medical undergraduate and postgraduate students is Primum non nocere, ie, first do no harm. It is a reminder to doctors to always consider that an intervention can lead to harm to the patient, however well intentioned it may be.

This principle is even more relevant today than in yesteryears.

Prior to World War II, the doctor’s responsibility to the patient was relatively simpler. It involved making a diagnosis and prescribing a treatment, which the patient may or may not respond to, depending on the patient’s physical state, and the illness he or she was suffering from.

 
 
In spite of the fact that there was, and still is, a marked shortage of medical educators in Malaysia, the expansion of medical schools has continued unabated.

It was not very different from a lottery. Medical knowledge and the range of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities then were limited. Specialists and other healthcare professionals, apart from nurses, were almost unheard of, and their services were only available to the well heeled.

There has been an explosion in medical knowledge, and the range of diagnostics and therapeutics has increased tremendously. Healthcare is one of the fastest growing sectors of many economies and is provided in many instances by a team of healthcare professionals, led by the doctor.

Specialists and specialty services are available in almost every nook and corner of the country, and if not available, access is provided by the state through ambulances and flying doctor services in the more remote areas.

Modern healthcare, however, is not without risks. The publication of To err is human by the Institute of Medicine in the United States in 1999, and similar reports from the United Kingdom and Australia, drew attention to adverse events that resulted from medical errors, the causes of which were human factors and system failures.

It is now generally accepted that the incidence of adverse events from hospitalisations is about 10%, with single digit figures for mortality and morbidity.

This was summed up succinctly by Sir Cyril Chantler in 1998: “Medicine used to be simple, ineffective, and relatively safe. Now it is complex, effective, and potentially dangerous.”

There are currently 24 medical schools providing undergraduate training for Malaysia’s population of 28 million. Countries with similar populations like Australia (22 million), Taiwan (23 million) and Canada (34 million) have 19, 11, and 17 medical schools respectively. – Source: United Nations

Recent media focus on the number of housemen and the attitudes of some of them raises questions about the quality of medical education, and by extension, the quality of healthcare patients will be receiving in the future.

The solutions announced to date are interim measures that do not adequately address fundamental issues which have their genesis upon the students’ admission into medical school. This article seeks to draw the reader’s attention to some of the issues and challenges that need to be addressed.

Learning medicine
There are more applications for entry to medical schools worldwide. Many young people want to become doctors, whether of their own volition, or at the behest of their parents.

High academic qualifications are the sole criteria for admission to all public medical schools in Malaysia, except University Sains Malaysia (USM), which requires an interview as well.

In general, the private medical schools also require high academic qualifications and an interview as well. Some also require applicants to pass an aptitude test.

Although the minimum academic qualifications for entry into medical schools are prescribed by the Malaysian Qualification Agency (MQA), there are claims of non-compliance by some private medical schools. There are also claims that some private medical schools take in more students than permitted.

The situation in foreign medical schools is varied.

Medical schools in advanced economies adhere strictly to high academic requirement, as well as assessments of the aptitude of the applicants.

However, some medical schools in developing countries admit students whose academic results would not even qualify them to enter a university in Malaysia for other courses with lesser entry requirements. Many of such students gain entry through the agencies of these medical schools.

It is necessary to emphasise that selection for entry into medical school implies selection for the medical profession. Findings from studies worldwide confirm that although some students have achieved the academic standards required for entry into medical school, they are not suitable for a career in medicine. It is in the interest of the public and such students that they should not gain admission, rather than to have to leave the course or the profession subsequently.

The issues and challenges that need to be addressed include:

● Should academic qualifications be the sole criteria for entry into medical schools?

● What is the role of interviews and/or aptitude tests?

● How robust is the monitoring of the compliance of Malaysian medical schools to the MQA’s minimum entry qualifications?

● How robust is the monitoring of the adherence of foreign medical schools to the MQA’s minimum entry requirements?

● What should be done to Malaysians admitted to local and/or foreign medical schools without MQA’s minimum entry requirements?

Medical schools
There are currently 24 medical schools providing undergraduate training for Malaysia’s population of 28 million (Source: International Medical Education Directory). Countries with similar populations like Australia (22 million), Taiwan (23 million) and Canada (34 million) have 19, 11 and 17 medical schools respectively (Source: United Nations).

Although there was a dichotomy between public and private medical schools in Malaysia previously, the margins have been blurred in the past few years. Some public medical schools have established twinning arrangements with universities abroad and the fees for students who enrol in such courses are not different from that charged by private medical schools in Malaysia.

Our ASEAN neighbours, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Philippines with populations of 238 million, 5 million, 67 million, and 94 million respectively have 35, 2, 12, and 41 medical schools respectively.

With the establishment of more medical schools already approved by the Higher Education Ministry, Malaysia may soon join the ranks of countries like Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom who have 41, 42, and 44 medical schools respectively for populations of 82 million, 60 million, and 62 million respectively.

The issue is compounded by the fact that the government recognises more than 370 medical qualifications worldwide. The list of recognised medical schools was inherited from our colonial masters and added to over the years.

In addition, graduates from unrecognised medical schools can sit for the Medical Qualifying Examination (MQE) of the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) and, upon passing, will be registered. The examination is the final year examination of the Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, and University Sains Malaysia who conduct the examination on behalf of the MMC.

There are some who question the validity of these examinations. However, they have not provided any material to substantiate their suspicions. An analysis would reveal that those who fail the MQE usually have very poor results at SPM and STPM levels.

In spite of the fact that there was, and still is, a marked shortage of medical educators in Malaysia, the expansion of medical schools has continued unabated. Some private medical schools have teaching staff who are mainly foreigners from Myanmar, the Indian sub-continent, and the Middle East. Some of them do not speak any of the local languages, and some have no previous teaching experience.

It is not only the number, but also the quality of medical educators that is crucial in producing doctors that will make a positive impact on the public’s health. Medical educators are role models for students. It is well known that a deficient doctor is reflective of a deficient teacher; just as a child’s conduct is reflective of the parent’s.

Local medical schools are given time-limited accreditation after assessments by teams comprising representatives from the Malaysian Qualification Agency, Health Ministry, and the MMC.

However, it is impossible to accredit all the foreign medical schools recognised by the Government for manpower, logistical, and financial reasons.

Most governments in developed economies recognise their limitations in assessing the quality of medical education of foreign medical graduates. They require all those who want to practise medicine, particularly foreign graduates, to pass a licensing examination.

Many Malaysian doctors who have practised abroad, particularly those above 40 years, have passed these licensing examinations without difficulty simply because of the quality of medical education they received.

Many in the medical profession have stated publicly their concern that there is more emphasis on the quantity instead of the quality of the graduates. The consequences in other areas of studies may not be significant, but in healthcare, it can be a matter of life and death for a patient or potential patient, which means all the population.

The issues and challenges that need to be addressed include:

● How many doctors does the country need, and by extension, how many medical schools does the country need?

● What is the quality of medical education in recognised local medical schools, and how robust is its monitoring?

● What is the quality of medical education in recognised foreign medical schools, and how robust is its monitoring?

● Should not all medical graduates, particularly those from foreign medical schools, whether recognised or unrecognised currently, be required to pass a licensing examination before they are permitted to practise in Malaysia?

● What is the role of agencies of foreign medical schools and how robust is its monitoring?

Housemenship
During the course of the newly graduated doctors’ future practice, there will be continuing advances in medical science and clinical practice, healthcare delivery and financing, increasing expectations of patients and the public, and changes in societal attitudes.

The MMC has listed five basic ingredients of Good Medical Practice. They are professional integrity, communication skills, ethical behaviour, treating patients with dignity, and being a team player.

By itself, the basic knowledge and skills taught in medical schools is insufficient. The housemenship period is the time to make a start in the development of the ingredients of Good Medical Practice.

Young doctors have to develop his or her professional competences, skills, and behaviours so that they are better placed to serve and improve the care and health of their patients. They have to learn to always put the interests of their patients first and that the doctors’ professional practices affect the experiences of patients and their families.

The skills of continuing professional development have to be developed so that their practices can advance in accordance to changes in medical knowledge and practices.

In short, the housemenship period is a time when the newly graduated doctor transitions from theory to practice.

Learning during the housemenship period is not only from books and journals, but also experiential, with the latter playing a significant role. There has to be sufficient quality teachers for this aspect of the young doctors’ training. The teachers, who are usually specialists, have a crucial role to play as they are role models for young doctors.

There has to be exposure to sufficient numbers of patients for young doctors to gain the experience required for independent practice. For example, they have to be exposed to the different ways in which the common conditions, appendicitis and urinary tract infections, present. Failure to make an accurate diagnosis will lead to threats to life, in the case of the former, and long term consequences, in the case of the latter.

When there are few patients relative to the many housemen, it will, inevitably, have a negative impact on the latter’s training.

The statement of Sir William Osler, the father of modern Medicine, is particularly relevant: “Medicine is learned by the bedside and not in the classroom. Let not your conceptions of disease come from words heard in the lecture room or read from the books. See and then reason, and compare and control. But, see first.”

Many specialists report that they find it increasingly difficult to cope with the dual tasks of providing care to patients and training housemen, with the former always having to take priority over the latter. It is disconcerting to hear some specialists state that they do not even know the names of some housemen assigned to their wards and clinics “because there are so many of them!”

The issues and challenges that need to be addressed include:

● How many housemenship training hospitals does the country need?

● How many specialists are needed for housemenship training?

● What is the quality of housemenship training and how robust is its monitoring?

Too many doctors?
With the current rate at which Malaysian doctors are graduating from medical schools, both locally and abroad, the country will reach its overall doctor population target of one doctor for 600 population within three to four years, and a ratio of one doctor for about 400 population or less by 2020.

There will have to be 5,000 to 7,000 Medical Officer posts in the public sector available annually within the next five years for the young doctors after completion of their housemenship training, and after that it will be anybody’s guess.

If there are insufficient posts, how many can be absorbed by the private sector, which is already saturated in many areas?

There will be no employment problems for doctors of good quality, but the prospect of unemployment is a possibility for the mediocre, and possibly, some of the average ones.

When the costs to the state or to the individual of producing one doctor are considered, the question arises whether it makes economic sense to flood the market with doctors. The laws of supply and demand do not apply to doctors simply because doctors are not only suppliers but also play a significant role on the demand side of the equation.

Studies from the developed economies have shown that a small number of doctors account for the majority of complaints and medical errors, where human factors are involved. Poor quality doctors will inevitably contribute to medical errors, morbidity, mortality, and consequential increase in healthcare expenditure.

Going forward
The current problem of housemenship training has its genesis in medical schools. It raises questions and challenges about the quality and quantity of medical graduates, some of which have been discussed above.

The resolution of the problem can only be possible if a comprehensive approach is taken. Ad hoc measures will not solve the problem. Moratoria and increasing the number of hospitals for housemenship may be part of the solution, but they are at best, interim measures.

The fundamental issues have to be addressed before the situation gets out of hand.

Medical schools have to be held accountable for the quality of their graduates. The principle that society’s health is more important than profits has to be adhered to at all times, particularly by the private medical schools.

We owe future generations a healthcare delivery system founded on patient safety and quality of care in which quality doctors have a crucial role to play. The consequences of having significant numbers of poor quality personnel in other areas of human activity may not be significant, but in healthcare, it can be a matter of life and death for all the population.

Dr Milton Lum is a member of the board of Medical Defence Malaysia. This article is not intended to replace, dictate or define evaluation by a qualified doctor. The views expressed do not represent that of any organisation the writer is associated with.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Malaysian Insider: Generic drugs — setting the record straight

Generic drugs — setting the record straight


Generic drugs could cut your medication bills up to 90 per cent. — Reuters pic

Malaysian Insider; JAN 18 — Are you aware that Malaysian pharmaceutical manufacturers have developed and launched generic drugs using their own brands and these generic drugs are meeting at least 65 per cent of the domestic prescription drug demand?

Did you also know that about 80 per cent of essential drugs in Malaysia have generic substitutes, including the 20 most-used medications for conditions such as hypertension, cholesterol control and diabetes, to name a few?

A recent study by a group at Universiti Sains Malaysia and published in the Journal of Generic Medicines showed that the use of generic drugs could save patients up to 90 per cent in their total medication costs.  If such substantial savings can be obtained, why aren’t there more Malaysians on generic drugs?

WHAT IS A GENERIC DRUG?
What is the difference between innovator drugs and generic drugs?

An innovator drug is the first drug of its kind to be discovered, developed and subsequently marketed by a pharmaceutical company.  When a new, effective and safe drug is discovered, it is common for the pharmaceutical company that discovered the new drug to apply for patent protection.

A patent protects the company by not allowing other drug companies to manufacture or market the patented drug until after the patent expires.  During the patent period, the drug is supplied exclusively by the innovator company and sold under the company’s trademarked name.  All new drugs have patent protection for a period of at least 20 years.

After the patent expires, generic versions of the drug can be developed and marketed.   Generic drugs manufacturers may market them under their own brands or under the drug’s chemical name, also known as the international non- proprietary name (INN).

QUALITY OF GENERIC DRUGS
However, before a generic drug can be marketed, drug regulatory agencies require that the generic drug should meet the same quality, safety, dosage and performance standards as the innovator drug.

In Malaysia, the Drug Control Authority (DCA) stringently regulates the quality, safety and efficacy of all drugs through production audits, import controls, marketing authorisation (registration), post marketing surveillance and sale of all pharmaceuticals. Malaysian pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to comply with the Code of Good Manufacturing Practices as laid out by the Malaysian DCA.

Malaysia, being a member of the International Pharmaceutical Inspection Cooperation/Scheme (PIC/S) since 2002, has helped to improve further the standard and quality of local generic drugs, over-the-counter and health supplements industries.  Malaysian generic drugs manufacturers must adhere to the strict European Union regulations and registration processes laid down by the PIC/S that require generic drugs produced to be thoroughly tested for safety and efficacy before they can be sold domestically and overseas.

Malaysian-made drugs are exported to more than 40 countries — a testimony to the quality, efficacy and safety of Malaysian-made pharmaceutical products and the international acceptance of Malaysian standards.

In line with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), DCA auditors conduct random and periodic on-site inspections to ensure that all manufacturing practices, including Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) and Good Storage Practices (GSP), are in line with local and international regulations and standards.  For manufacturers that export their generic drugs, their facilities are also subject to GMP audits by drug regulatory inspectors of the respective importing countries.

“A significant number of consumers, including some healthcare providers, still hold the perception that locally-manufactured generic medicines are not similar in efficacy and quality to innovator drugs. This is totally inaccurate. As a matter of fact, it is common for a local pharmaceutical manufacturer to produce both innovator drugs (under license from multinational drug companies) and generic drugs within the same facility,” said Jimmy Piong, President of the Malaysian Organisation of Pharmaceutical Industries (MOPI). “Many of these misconceptions are due to lack of awareness and understanding of generic drugs.”

EFFICACY OF GENERIC DRUGS

Another common misconception is that generic drugs are not as efficacious and potent as innovator drugs.

Although the appearance of a generic drug may be different in shape, colour and size, it must, nevertheless, contain the same active ingredient as an innovator drug.

In addition, generic drug manufacturers conduct clinical efficacy trials such as bio-equivalence studies to establish efficacy. A bio-equivalence clinical efficacy trial study involves comparing a generic versus innovator drug in the same dosage under the same conditions on human subjects.  This clinical efficacy trial is conducted on human test subjects to prove that the generic and innovator drug work and act in the same way on all test patients.

In short, the clinical trial must show that the efficacy of the generic drug is exactly the same as the innovator counterpart.  When the generic and innovator drugs are interchanged or substituted, no significant difference in safety and efficacy should be observed.

PRICING OF GENERIC DRUGS
If generic drugs are as good as innovator drugs, why do they cost less?

The cost of a drug can be divided simply but broadly into two components  — new drug discovery cost and manufacturing cost.  The main cost of an innovator drug company goes into the discovery of the drug, the ensuing clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of that newly discovered drug and aggressive marketing campaigns.

Generic drug companies focus principally on the manufacturing process which includes formulation development, bio-equivalence (BE) clinical efficacy studies, stability studies, quality control and assurance, and therefore the “discovery” cost component does not feature in the cost equation. This is ultimately reflected in the competitive pricing of generic drugs, a benefit that is passed on to consumers.

In a nutshell, the distinction between an innovator drug company and a generic drug company may be best explained in that the expertise of the innovator drug company is essentially in innovation and research of new drugs while the manufacturing processes are generally similar between generic and innovator manufacturers.


ARE GENERIC DRUGS FOR EVERYONE?
The decision to use generic medications has ultimately to be made in consultation with one’s doctor and/or specialist.  With their intimate knowledge of their patient’s medical history, they would be in the best position to offer appropriate advice.

Said Dr David Quek, President of the Malaysian Medical Association: “Most if not all doctors consider the well-being of their patients as the first and foremost consideration when prescribing any medications. Doctors consider first the need for the drug, the quality, the make, the evidence, and the requisite bioequivalence testing which gives the doctor the full confidence that the drug prescribed truly contains the medicine that it is supposed to have.

“Second, any drug used must be consistently produced in good manufacturing practice pharmaceutical factories. Given this assurance which must be borne out by rigorous safety, standards and dose testing, appropriate post-marketing surveillance and clinical use, doctors would prescribe any drug, be it a generic or a proprietary one.

“Most doctors would prescribe any drug which is considered safe, of assured quality and also efficacious, with price being a plus factor, especially for those who are price conscious. The use of any branded proprietary drug is governed mainly by the perceived greater quality control and testing, as well as the evidence-based research that has gone on to confirm the efficacy and potency of the drug concerned.”

Dr Quek added:  “In very serious illnesses however, many doctors believe that using a branded product may be superior because doctors would like to be sure that they have used the product which is assured of its quality and its purported effects.

“Doctors cannot afford to be wrong in their choice of any drug under such circumstances—so perception of generic drugs must be improved upon with greater emphasis on quality assurance measures.”

Dr Quek commented: “The use of generic drugs in Malaysia can be made more popular when medicines for more serious ailments are made to international standards of quality.

“The use of these drugs must be tempered with the confidence that these drugs are produced at a standard at par with branded ones. However, when innovator ‘branded’ drugs are used, these tend to be newer classes of drugs and are perceived to be more efficacious medicines. These are sometimes needed to treat illness which had failed using generic ones. Occasionally, these innovator drugs are easier to adhere to because of fewer adverse effects or easier dosing intervals.

“Generic drugs in Malaysia, need to be improved in terms of its quality, regularity of bioequivalence testing and standardisation, and its confidence level of acceptance before they can unequivocally be used without any reservations by all doctors.”

On the issue of price, Dr Quek said: “In the long run, any medicine that is affordable to most patients is critical in ensuring that patients can adhere to their therapy, especially for chronic ailments such as hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease or hyperlipidemia. It is of no use to use only a branded drug for a short period, and then stopping because of patient drop-out due to costs constraints. It is better to ensure that patients can afford whichever drug that is prescribed. Hence there is a great role to play for good quality generic drugs to ensure greater universal compliance with treatment."

“Generic drugs are important because they help to reduce the cost of prescription medications in any country, including Malaysia. In fact, most drugs used for family physicians or GPs, as well as most public healthcare facilities use predominantly generic drugs for many ailments.”

Piong of MOPI commented: “It is important for Malaysians to be aware of the options when it comes to their medicines.  Generic drugs do offer patients with accessible and affordable drugs.  They play an essential role in maintaining public health.  Consumers have the right to know and make an informed decision base on the correct information which is readily available from the family doctors and pharmacists”. — Malaysian Organisation of Pharmaceutical Industries (MOPI).

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Joint Meeting of AFPM, MMA, Qualitas & PCDOM on Primary Care Concerns


Joint Meeting of AFPM, MMA, Qualitas & PCDOM on Primary Care Concerns


Objectives:
To form a united working group which coordinates, collates and raises critical viewpoints of primary care medical practitioners, to provide timely responses to challenges and threats which may arise from time to time.
Members comprise of representatives from the various primary health care medical practitioner societies and groups, i.e. MMA, AFPM, PPSMMA, Qualitas, PCDOM, FPMFAM


Report on the Inaugural Working Group Meeting on 29.10.09, held at the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia Office, at Academy Building, Jalan Pahang


In attendance:

Dr. Frank Tan Eng Huat, AFPM
Dr. Sudha Nanthan, AFPM
Dr. Noor Azizah Tahir, AFPM
Dr. David Quek, MMA
Dato Dr. Tharmaseelan, MMA
Dato Dr. Mohan Singh, PPSMMA
Dato Dr. Noorul Ameen, Qualitas
Dr. Molly Cheah, PCDOM

The discussions covered many aspects of the impacts where the family medicine doctors / GPs are affected by new developments, such as:

  1. MSQH trying to impose the credentialing and quality-assessment of GP clinics
-         Possibility of charging a fee for auditing our medical clinics
-         two weekly statistics returns that is imposed on the administration of the clinics
-         regulatory mechanisms that will further burden us
-         possibility of MSQH lobbying to regulate through new initiatives through the Cabinet or EPU, or through subtle imposition of standards requirements before GP clinics are afforded panel status or even eventual reimbursement schemes, health care insurance restructuring
-         enforcement surveys being carried out by paid surveyors/officers, perhaps similar to the processes of  Fomema, or Unit Amalan of KKM
-         We want to manage our own Quality Assurance.
-         Accreditation should be voluntary, and should not encumber or discriminate against those without such quality assessments.

2. Setting up of feeder clinics and primary care clinics by many tertiary Private Hospitals
3. MOH opening up more primary care clinics, such as 1Malaysia clinics manned by MAs

Our Aim: to discuss proactive methods to try and prevent these developments from taking place without safeguards and to lessen the impacts of such possible oversight processes from overwhelming our medical practices.

The minutes below detail the discussions of the group:


Opening Remarks

Dr. Frank Tan Eng Huat, President of AFPM called the meeting to order at 3.30 pm. In his opening address the President mentioned about the worrying trend where primary care centres were being opened by private hospitals, by Wellness Laboratories and even by the ministry of health.

He welcomed all present. Dr. Frank then requested the members to introduce themselves. The AFPM President then asked the members of the various groups to have an open discussion on the various issues highlighted.


Matters Discussed

MSQH Concerns
There were lively open discussions and debating by all the members. Dr. Sudha requested each member of the group to please look into the future with a new vision and as a  team. He said that there were some common grievances that we are facing now. Each of these must be addressed and brought up. The main issues were in the agenda. The new ones brought up today can be brought up later or at the next meeting.

Dr Sudha gave a run down  of the role of MSQH all these years and the role of MMA and MMA’s contribution of RM100,000. He said that the DG supported MSQH since 2007 but later came to know of the work done by the Academy through its subsidiary QIP. Subsequently, the DG has been supporting AFPM’s QIP and has advised that all primary care groups work together.
Dr Sudha said that he was directed by the Chairman of AFPM, Dato Thuraiappah to get the primary care groups together to have a meeting. Dr Sudha was further supported in this endeavour by Dr David Quek when he brought it up at the MMA Council meeting. That is how all the members are here today.

PPSMMA Perspective
Dato Dr Mohan then mentioned that he had the gathered various documents of the deals that MMA had made with MSQH. He said that the direction that the working partnership had taken was different now compared with what was envisioned. The threat of parliamentary support for MSQH would mean that further regulations would be imposed upon GPs and considering that hospitals were spending a fortune for the MSQH accreditation, the same could be imposed upon us.

Qualitas Input
Dato Noorul Ameen gave a description of the workings of MSQH and he said that they were already in the process of setting up a pilot project based on a good assessment tool. He said that AFPM was represented by the various members at MSQH before, but a strong enough voice was not heard from them.

Dato Noorul was against the idea of further regulations forced upon GPs.

He also said that he was disappointed with AFPM and MMA for their lack of appropriate actions when called upon to be more involved or vocal, in the past.

MMA’s perspectives
Dr David Quek then joined in, and commented on the lack of serious, concerted and quality participation by the GP sector. This was echoed by Dr Norazizah and also Dato Dr Tharma. He also said that GPs hardly attended GP meetings, MMA AGMs, other seminars like the H1N1 etc. Their participation in PPSMMA is also very selected and insufficient in numbers to give more impact.

Our GP groups also appear to be weak in coming forwards with detailed working papers or research which can help influence national health policy matters. He contrasted our weaknesses compared with that of the UK where the GPs’ strength is phenomenal and their input into the NHS enormous and substantive.

Declining GP remuneration
Dato Noorul, Dr Norazizah and Dr Molly Cheah then discussed on the declining and poor remunerations of the GPs and the cost of locums which especially of late, had gone up further because of MOH initiatives. Everybody then decided that one of the issues to be discussed at the next meeting would be stressing on need for a better and more reasonable GP remuneration.

The past actions and relatively passive responses by MMA and AFPM were discussed at length and eventually it was agreed that the new working group would in future work together, have regular meetings and be more pro-active in their stance.

PCDOM, Membership issues
Dr Molly Cheah came up with the role of PCDOM, its computer medical information systems, and the lack of participation by fellow colleagues.  This may be discussed at the next meeting.

Dr David Quek reminded Dr Cheah that membership numbers are also important for GP groups to impact on any important issues which are raised. He asked if PCDOM can share its membership numbers, so that whatever is raised by its leadership can then have greater weight and influence.

Dr Quek admitted that even the MMA has membership issues which are declining in proportion to the rising number of registered doctors in the country—we are now only about 32% of all the 25000+ registered doctors, but still the largest representative group for doctors.

Accreditation issues should not be regulated
Dato Noorul then suggested that we must first of all address the threat of the Accreditation of Primary Care being brought up to parliament which means that it could become an act and there fore another regulatory mechanism enforced upon the GPs. He suggested that we must first of all act upon that.

He said that following that, we can all work together, and suggested that with the MMA and Dr David taking the lead in tackling the various grievances, perhaps we can then implement the quality assurance programmes through the AFPM, we can bring in the rest of our working group to tackle the problems facing us.

Dato Mohan strongly supported and reinforced that the accreditation process should not be allowed to be tabled at parliament by MSQH.

Dato Dr Tharma then summarised the issues discussed

a. Press / Media campaigns  –  to stop further regulations that could be enforced upon us through mandatory  accreditation. Accreditation should be a voluntary process.

b. Identifying ourselves as a new working group that coordinates all the different challenges and threats that we face.

 c. Discussion on these issues should be an on-going process.

d. Primary Care Doctors should have a recognised GP group like the SCHOMOS to discuss the various issues faced by GPs. PPSMMA will encourage GPs to work with MMA in full force to help realise our objectives more effectively and collectively.

e. This working group will meet again next month. A Thursday at about 5.30 pm was suggested. The discussions will be based upon an agenda that will be drawn up.

f. As part of the agenda:
      - The Strengths/ Weaknesses of each component of our  working group will be outlined and addressed
    - A New Vision and objectives will be the thrust.
    - All GP groups and primary care doctors will be indentified.
    - All members of the working group were advised to contribute towards the agenda.

Other matters:

The next meeting by this group (name to be decided) would be hosted at the MMA House, The discussions will be based upon an agenda that will be drawn up. The course of  action on the various issues will be decided there.

Action Points
The members of the group were requested to give the ideas and comments on the various points to be discussed. Dr Quek asked Dr Norazizah to come up with some ideas to encourage GPs to take an active part in matters affecting them. He also requested Dato Dr Noorul Ameen to come up with a paper on costs comparing primary care managed by GPs to that managed by the government  and the effect  opening of primary care centres will have on the economy.

Meeting with DG Health
Dr Sudha then mentioned that the AFPM had set up a meeting with the DG of Health on the 4th of November at 12 pm. He said that representatives from each group was ideal. Dato Mohan could come, Dr Norazizah will try and Dr Molly Cheah will come. Dr Noorul will send a representative. Academy will be represented by the EXCO.

The meeting adjourned at 5.30pm



Prepared by   :           Nalini Balakrisna
Date                :           30th October 2009
                              
Checked by   :           Dr. Sudha Nanthan / Dr David Quek
Date                :           18th Nov 2009