Assessing Arizona Prescriber’s Attitudes about the Inclusion of Diagnosis or Clinical Indication on Prescriptions

Abstract

Specific Aims: The study purpose was to assess the degree to which Arizona prescribers support the inclusion of diagnoses or clinical indication on prescriptions and if they already include it on prescriptions, what challenges they believe need to be overcome before legislation is proposed, and to analyze the different perspectives between Arizona pharmacists and prescribers about the inclusion of diagnoses or clinical indication on prescriptions. Methods: A presentation on the advantages and disadvantages of including the indication or diagnosis on prescriptions was given to primary care providers with active Arizona licenses at the Arizona Osteopathic Medical Association (AOMA) Annual Convention and the Arizona Nurse Practitioner Council (AZNPC) educational webinar. A 20-question questionnaire was distributed to attendees to collect opinions about the inclusion of indication or diagnosis. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Main Results: A total of 74 questionnaires were returned by respondents (92% Doctors of Osteopathy, 8% NPs). Out of the 74 responses, 39 questionnaires (53%) were complete. When asked if the providers would support voluntary inclusion of diagnosis/indication, 52 (71.2%) respondents agreed. Arizona prescribers do not disagree with pharmacists1 on the inclusion of a diagnosis or clinical indication on a prescription (p=0.77), but disagree with the requirement of including a diagnosis or clinical indication (n= 40, 55.5%). Conclusions: Arizona prescribers support the inclusion of a diagnosis or clinical indication, but do not support an inclusion requirement. Although most Arizona prescribers who responded are supportive of voluntary inclusion of clinical indication or diagnosis on prescription orders, many are reluctant to make this a requirement.