论文部分内容阅读
目的:分析静脉用药配制中心(PIVAS)对临床用药安全性的影响。方法:选取2014年6月—2015年5月间实施PIVAS集中配药模式的7个病区住院患者的长期医嘱为A组,同期采取传统配药模式的7个病区住院患者的长期医嘱为B组;2012年6月—2013年5月间A组中7个病区未实行PIVAS集中配药模式时住院患者的长期医嘱为C组,对比三组患者之间药物配伍的不合理率、药物溶媒不合理率、给药剂量不合理率、给药间隔时间不合理率和药物不良反应(或事件)的发生率。结果:A组患者药物配伍不合理率为0.051%,药物溶媒不合理率为0.011%,给药剂量不合理率为0.010%,给药间隔时间不合理率为0.025%,不良反应(或事件)的发生率为0.031%;B组患者药物配伍不合理率为0.143%,药物溶媒不合理率为0.713%,给药剂量不合理率为0.357%,给药间隔时间不合理率为0.145%,不良反应(或事件)的发生率为0.773%;C组患者药物配伍不合理率为0.133%,药物溶媒不合理率为0.690%,给药剂量不合理率为0.400%,给药间隔时间不合理率为0.229%,不良反应(或事件)的发生率为0.932%;A组与B、C组间经比较其差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);B组与C组间经比较其差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:PIVAS对不合理医嘱的干预明显提高临床用药的安全性和合理性。
Objective: To analyze the influence of intravenous drug preparation center (PIVAS) on the safety of clinical medication. Methods: The long-term doctor’s advice of inpatients from 7 wards in PIVAS centralized pharmacy during June 2014-May 2015 was selected as group A, and the long-term doctor’s advice of inpatients in 7 wards in the same period as group B ; The long-term doctor’s orders for hospitalized patients without PIVAS centralized management mode in 7 wards in group A between June 2012 and May 2013 were group C, comparing the unreasonable rates of drug compatibility between the three groups of patients, the drug vehicle was not Reasonable rate, irrational dosage rate, unreasonable dosage interval and adverse drug reactions (or events). Results: The unreasonable rate of drug compatibility in group A was 0.051%, the rate of drug unreasonable was 0.011%, the rate of irrational drug administration was 0.010%, the rate of irrational interval of administration was 0.025%, and adverse reactions (or events) The incidence of adverse drug reactions in group B was 0.143%, unreasonable rate was 0.713%, irrational dose was 0.357%, irrational interval was 0.145% The incidence of reaction (or event) was 0.773%. The unreasonable rate of drug compatibility in group C was 0.133%, the unreasonable rate of drug vehicle was 0.690%, the dosage of irrational rate was 0.400% (0.229%), and the incidence of adverse reactions (or events) was 0.932%. There was significant difference between group A and group B and group C (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between group B and group C Statistical significance (P> 0.05). Conclusion: The intervention of PIVAS on unreasonable doctor ’s orders obviously improves the safety and rationality of clinical medication.