Why Use Fluconazole Treatment

One of the nastiest types of infection is fungal infection.  Although they are more likely to grow on the skin, there are more serious ones though that develops in the respiratory system and infect not just the lungs, but also the blood and other parts of the body’s internal structure.  When you develop a fungal infection, it is vital that you treat the infection as soon as possible to prevent further growth, development, and spread of the infection.  Failure to do so may mean longer and costlier treatment.  Fluconazole treatment is needed for treating fungal infection.  Fluconazole treatment is an antifungal medication treatment that you take orally.

Most antifungals are applied on the skin directly to where the infection has developed.  However, if the infection has buried further or deeper in to the skin, or the infection has developed inside of the body, such topical type of antifungal will not work on such.  For cases like this, fluconazole treatment is necessary as fluconazole treatment comes in pill form which you take orally.  The treatment process in using fluconazole treatment is the purging of the infection from the inside of your body.  This effectively gets rid of the infection from your system.

For antifungal fluconazole treatment, it is necessary that you use fluconazole treatment for a course of several days.  The number of days you need to use fluconazole treatment depends on the type of infection that you have developed and the severity that it has.  Course treatment is necessary in completely getting rid of an infection from the body.  This is the very reason why doctors prescribe patients with several days of use of fluconazole treatment when they have a fungal infection.  By completing the course of fluconazole treatment, you will be able to completely purge the fungal infection out of the body. Read more…

Pharmacist prescribing prompts legal concerns

Do you need to adjust your practice to limit liability risk?


Physicians used to be the only people prescribing drugs to patients. Those days are long gone.

Over the last four years or so, in almost every province, limited prescribing and renewal authorities have been granted to other health workers, including pharmacists, nurse practitioners and even naturopaths.

The latest province to follow the trend is Ontario. Despite the Ontario Medical Association’s objections, work is now underway to permit pharmacists to extend, adapt and adjust prescriptions. New draft regulations will govern prescribing by nurses and naturopaths as well. British Columbia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick already have similar legislation, while Alberta pharmacists can become certified to initiate certain prescriptions. Nearly every other province is working on some variation of these ideas.

The decision to extend prescribing authority to non-doctors is a logical response to the growing queues of orphan patients, and to doctors’ clamouring about suffocating workloads. But the trend towards expanding prescribing authority introduces new liability issues for physicians.

to read the rest of this article on the Parkhurst Exchange website.

Photo: Shutterstock

2 comments:

said...

Random thoughts on prescription issuance by regulated healthcare professionals.

RE: the legal perspective

A prescription is a contract.

Whomever " initiates" the contract is the contractor.

Insurance companies must clearly delineate the liability issues for anyone who has a "care contract" without following appropriate procedures that are assumed as inherent in such a contract.

In the event that the prescription is not linked to a valid " initiator" to make this type of contract there should be clear guidelines as to what the impact is for the " prescriber " who is a " regulated" health professional.

Regulated professional bodies have " administration manuals for the examination of administrators.
They are different than the guidelines given to practitioners.
Your organization should have someone who functions in the administrator role to ensure policies and procedures are in place ...and followed.

RE: the scale and scope perspective

It is foolish to have any "system of contracts" that is not legal and binding on both parties.

"Double doctoring" is not acceptable by the payor.....and should not be tolerated by the courts.

If a patient has a prescription relationship that constitutes following a "regime" (as opposed to emergency refill or acute episode control)the penalties for litigation issues should be different.

Prescribing rights of subordinate staff should be viewed as " standing orders" following specific protocols for disease states. They should have expiration dates.

Some realtime tech connect ( similar to WEED charting) should inform any prescriber in an interdpendent team of all current prescription Hx of the patient and relevant information of disease process and treatment success where all team members serving the client are part of the info loop .

Interdisciplinary teams should not overlook the genuine possiblility that in the future the client will have multi-disciplinary team relationships that are broader than medical determinant of health.
This broad-based service arena is seen as dramatically more cost-effective than the exclusivity of past interpretations of " health".
In many respects this self-directed construct forms the strength of the " self-care" movement and the " flip" is where the healthcare professional becomes the servant ( not the patient as servant to the healthcare professional).

A word to the wise.... better a servant...than a slave. 8-)

said...

Health officials have published new to help doctors evaluate and monitor dosage levels of narcotics prescribed to treat patients with chronic pain. DrFirst is committed to improving healthcare and patient safety by delivering technologies that enable medical professionals and their staff to quickly and easily access critical medical information at the point of care. Check out this site http://www.drfirst.com/eprescribing.jsp