I am pleased with the attention our President of the RACGP is giving to the issue of prescribing Roaccutane.(isotretinoin). It is a serious drug that is used to treat a common condition. Liz Marles is advocating that the prescription should be made in general practice.

There are good reasons for this. First, at least in my experience, if I refer for this purpose to a dermatologist they invariably prescribe. Second, contraception and adherence is something we know about and is the main argument for specialist review. Third, NZ GPs have been doing well since being able to prescribe the drug in 2009.

I would argue that, where such regulator concerns exist, at least in the first instance, Fellows of the RACGP should be able to prescribe the medication as specialist general practitioners. This provides evidence to regulators and patients that the GP has reached a suitable standard to take such action and monitor progress. I understand there are good doctors working in general practice without Fellowship, some no doubt far better than I. However, when actions demand high standards of care it seems reasonable to initially back doctors who have put themselves through assessment by their peers to ensure they are suitable for independent practice.

I would go further and promote those specialist general practitioners, their training and commitment to standards. Does the general public understand what Fellowship means? Do politicians? Do they understand that no one has been grandfathered by the RACGP?

Does your practice draw attention to Fellowship and what this means to your patients? Do they have a right to know?