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

IF 1.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
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 The Therapeutic Products Act 2023 in New Zealand proposed reforms but is currently in the process of being repealed.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":1.2000,"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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信