Unapproved medicine use by paramedics in New Zealand: a comparative analysis with Australian and United Kingdom frameworks.

IF 1.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL Pub Date : 2025-03-28 DOI:10.26635/6965.6825
Dylan A Mordaunt
{"title":"Unapproved medicine use by paramedics in New Zealand: a comparative analysis with Australian and United Kingdom frameworks.","authors":"Dylan A Mordaunt","doi":"10.26635/6965.6825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the regulation of unapproved medicines and its impact on paramedic practice in out-of-hospital settings by comparing regulatory frameworks in New Zealand, the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia. The objective was to propose actionable policy recommendations to improve New Zealand's current regulatory approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comparative analysis was conducted using theoretical frameworks including regulatory theory, public health law, institutionalism, comparative policy analysis and health crisis management. A technical comparison was also undertaken. Data were collected from legislative texts, policy documents and secondary sources. The analysis focussed on prescribing and administration authority, administrative requirements, flexibility in emergency situations and the impact on patient care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Section 29 of the New Zealand Medicines Act 1981 imposes comprehensive reporting requirements and restricts unapproved medicine use to registered medical practitioners, hindering timely interventions by paramedics. The administrative burden and lack of flexibility in emergency situations compromise patient care. In contrast, the UK's Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and Australia's Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 provide structured and adaptable pathways. The Therapeutic Products Act 2023 in New Zealand proposed reforms but is currently in the process of being repealed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>New Zealand's framework of Section 29 is ill-suited for pre-hospital emergency care, creating ethical and practical dilemmas for paramedics. Comparative insights reveal that more flexible legal frameworks in the UK and Australia better support paramedics' ability to provide timely care. Ethical considerations emphasise the need to balance regulatory oversight with patient care imperatives. Legislative reforms in New Zealand are urgently needed to enable the lawful administration of unapproved medicines by paramedics, reduce administrative burdens and align its framework with international best practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":48086,"journal":{"name":"NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL","volume":"138 1612","pages":"47-59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26635/6965.6825","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the regulation of unapproved medicines and its impact on paramedic practice in out-of-hospital settings by comparing regulatory frameworks in New Zealand, the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia. The objective was to propose actionable policy recommendations to improve New Zealand's current regulatory approach.

Methods: A comparative analysis was conducted using theoretical frameworks including regulatory theory, public health law, institutionalism, comparative policy analysis and health crisis management. A technical comparison was also undertaken. Data were collected from legislative texts, policy documents and secondary sources. The analysis focussed on prescribing and administration authority, administrative requirements, flexibility in emergency situations and the impact on patient care.

Results: Section 29 of the New Zealand Medicines Act 1981 imposes comprehensive reporting requirements and restricts unapproved medicine use to registered medical practitioners, hindering timely interventions by paramedics. The administrative burden and lack of flexibility in emergency situations compromise patient care. In contrast, the UK's Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and Australia's Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 provide structured and adaptable pathways. The Therapeutic Products Act 2023 in New Zealand proposed reforms but is currently in the process of being repealed.

Conclusion: New Zealand's framework of Section 29 is ill-suited for pre-hospital emergency care, creating ethical and practical dilemmas for paramedics. Comparative insights reveal that more flexible legal frameworks in the UK and Australia better support paramedics' ability to provide timely care. Ethical considerations emphasise the need to balance regulatory oversight with patient care imperatives. Legislative reforms in New Zealand are urgently needed to enable the lawful administration of unapproved medicines by paramedics, reduce administrative burdens and align its framework with international best practices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新西兰护理人员使用未经批准的药物:与澳大利亚和英国框架的比较分析。
目的:通过比较新西兰、英国和澳大利亚的监管框架,评估未经批准药品的监管及其对院外护理人员实践的影响。目的是提出可行的政策建议,以改进新西兰目前的监管方法。方法:运用管制理论、公共卫生法、制度主义、比较政策分析、卫生危机管理等理论框架进行对比分析。还进行了技术比较。数据收集自立法文本、政策文件和二手来源。分析的重点是处方和行政权力、行政要求、紧急情况下的灵活性以及对病人护理的影响。结果:1981年《新西兰药品法》第29节规定了全面的报告要求,并限制注册医生使用未经批准的药物,妨碍了护理人员的及时干预。行政负担和在紧急情况下缺乏灵活性影响了对病人的护理。相比之下,英国的《2012年人类药品条例》和澳大利亚的《1989年治疗用品法》提供了结构化和适应性强的途径。新西兰的《2023年治疗产品法案》提出了改革,但目前正在被废除。结论:新西兰第29条的框架不适合院前急救,给护理人员造成道德和实际困境。比较分析表明,英国和澳大利亚更灵活的法律框架能更好地支持护理人员提供及时护理的能力。伦理方面的考虑强调需要平衡监管监督与病人护理的必要性。新西兰迫切需要进行立法改革,使护理人员能够合法使用未经批准的药物,减轻行政负担,并使其框架与国际最佳做法保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL
NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
23.50%
发文量
229
期刊最新文献
Diagnoses of blood-borne viruses and other sexually transmitted infections in a sample of 356 sex workers attending a sexual health outreach clinic in Auckland over a two-year period. Evolving roles and workforce trends among nurse practitioners in Aotearoa New Zealand (2014-2022). Performance first: why the economic success of our nation is dependent on the health of our people and why privatisation by stealth won't fix New Zealand's health system. Ethnic differences in population-level intracerebral haemorrhage incidence in Aotearoa New Zealand: findings from three Auckland Regional Community Stroke cohorts. Addressing significant inequity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1