<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wright, Nat</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Author's response</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">British Journal of General Practice</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004-08-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">623-624</style></pages><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">54</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">505</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">We welcome the letter by Paul Driscoll and were disappointed, yet not surprised to read of the increased number of consultations, hospital appointments and increased distress to patients, families and carers as a result of urgent facsimile advice to change prescribing practice. We would encourage both the primary care profession and the prescribing regulatory authorities to learn from this episode, …</style></abstract></record></records></xml>