Lim L Y, Chui W K
Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
J Clin Pharm Ther. 1999 Feb;24(1):33-42. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.1999.00193.x.
Relatively little is known about the organized drug information centres (DICs) in Asia. Here we evaluate the four pharmacist-operated DICs in Singapore and compare them with published information on DICs located in Australia, the U.K. and the U.S., and with established guidelines for quality assurance of DICs.
A prospective survey was conducted in 1996 in which two sets of questionnaires were developed and distributed to the DIC pharmacists to elicit information on the DIC as well as the DIC pharmacists. In addition, the enquiry records received by the DICs over the period 1 April to 31 July 1996 were collated for evaluation.
All the pharmacist-operated DICs in Singapore were well equipped with facilities for information retrieval, storage and dissemination, and they had adequate literature resources comparable with DICs in Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. They also complied with many of the DIC guidelines compiled by The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia, except for the institution of formal quality assurance programmes, which was lacking in all centres. The professional activities of the local DIC pharmacists were also similar to their counterparts in Australia, the U.K. and U.S., but the job scope could be expanded to include other activities that are gaining impetus among other DIC pharmacists. Postgraduate professional training of pharmacists was inadequate compared with the specialist training received by DIC pharmacists in the U.S. A total of 2517 enquiries were collated for evaluation. Physicians were the major class (47-57%) of enquirers in the local hospitals. The classes of questions received by the DICs were not different from those received by DICs elsewhere, although the DICs in the hospitals received a preponderance of questions on dose (20-25%) and product availability (13-16%). More than 60% of enquiries received by the DICs in the hospitals were answered within 5 min, while about 80% of the enquiries required reference to not more than one literature resource.
The pharmacist-operated DICs in Singapore have comparable standards to established DICs in Australia, the U.K. and U.S., while the workload and activities of the local DIC pharmacists are similar to their counterparts in these countries. It is recommended that the DICs institute formal quality assurance programmes and expand the training and job scope of the DIC pharmacists.
关于亚洲有组织的药物信息中心（DICs），人们了解相对较少。在此，我们对新加坡的四个由药剂师运营的DICs进行评估，并将它们与已发表的关于澳大利亚、英国和美国DICs的信息，以及与DICs质量保证的既定指南进行比较。
1996年进行了一项前瞻性调查，开发了两套问卷并分发给DIC药剂师，以获取有关DIC以及DIC药剂师的信息。此外，还整理了1996年4月1日至7月31日期间DICs收到的咨询记录进行评估。
新加坡所有由药剂师运营的DICs都配备了完善的信息检索、存储和传播设施，并且拥有与澳大利亚、英国和美国的DICs相当的充足文献资源。它们还符合澳大利亚医院药剂师协会编制的许多DIC指南，除了缺乏正式的质量保证计划，所有中心均未设立该计划。当地DIC药剂师的专业活动也与澳大利亚、英国和美国的同行相似，但工作范围可以扩大，以纳入其他DIC药剂师中正在兴起的其他活动。与美国DIC药剂师接受的专科培训相比，药剂师的研究生专业培训不足。共整理了2517条咨询记录进行评估。医生是当地医院咨询者的主要群体（47 - 57%）。DICs收到的问题类别与其他地方的DICs收到的问题没有差异，尽管医院的DICs收到的关于剂量（20 - 25%）和产品供应情况（13 - 16%）的问题占多数。医院的DICs收到的咨询中，超过60%在5分钟内得到回复，而约80%的咨询只需查阅不超过一份文献资源。
新加坡由药剂师运营的DICs与澳大利亚、英国和美国的既定DICs标准相当，而当地DIC药剂师的工作量和活动与这些国家的同行相似。建议DICs设立正式的质量保证计划，并扩大DIC药剂师的培训和工作范围。
