National differences, in prescribing

National differences in prescribing can be identified and are related to national wealth, national culture and attitudes toward the role of drugs in medical treatment. Typical countries, whether rich or poor, spend rather over 1% of GDP on pharmaceuticals, but there are wide variations. The United States tops the list with 2.02% in 2004. Erance comes second with 1.39%, and Switzerland and the Netherlands are the least extravagant in the OECD with O.Oland 0.74% respectively. ... 

National differences in prescribing can be identified and are related to national wealth, national culttue and attitudes towards the role of dmgs in medical treatment. Expenditure per head per year in different countries varies dramatically... 

This introduces medicines supply in the community and covers the background details. National Health Service (NHS) prescription forms and the restrictions placed on different NHS prescribers in the community, including the role of the UK Drug Tariffs, are discussed. 

A variety of error rates for different aspects of the medication use process have been reported. Researchers use different methodologies and definitions of medication error, and study different aspects of the medication use process (i.e., prescribing, dispensing, administering). Because there is no national standardization for the denominator used to report medication error rates, the denominator can vary among several, including doses dispensed, doses administered, doses ordered, and patient days. Therefore, the rates reported in the literature are limited in their use for comparative purposes [5]. 

The experiments were carried out on high purity aluminium from different producers (Table I) and Al-Ga alloys. The impurity concentration in the used materials was determined by glow discharge mass-spectrometry. The total impurity content in pure aluminium (0.4 - 7.7 ppm) was defined as the sum of the concentration of all found elements.The residual resistivity ratio RRR=p(273K)/p(4.2K) of the materials was measuredby the method prescribed by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. 

Since Kuhn s paper on imipramine, it has been believed that antidepressants are most effective in severe depression. Many people, who are sceptical of their widespread use for milder cases, maintain that antidepressants are nevertheless effective and necessary in severe depression. It has also been suggested that the reason some studies find little difference between antidepressants and placebo is because they are conducted with people with mild depression, who dilute the antidepressant effect (National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2004). The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on the treatment of depression have gone as far as to suggest recently that antidepressants should not be prescribed to people with mild depression, and should only be used in cases of moderate and severe depression. However there is actually little evidence for the presumption that antidepressants are effective in severe depression. 

---