Suppr超能文献

重症监护病房中的药品不良事件报告:当前实践情况调查

Adverse drug event reporting in intensive care units: a survey of current practices.

作者信息

Kane-Gill Sandra L, Devlin John W

机构信息

University of Pittsburgh, Center for Pharmacoinformatics and Outcomes Research, PA 15261, USA.

出版信息

Ann Pharmacother. 2006 Jul-Aug;40(7-8):1267-73. doi: 10.1345/aph.1H088. Epub 2006 Jul 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

With the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) higher in the intensive care unit (ICU) than other areas of the hospital, it is suspected that ADE/ADR surveillance systems differ between ICU and non-ICU areas. However, there is a lack of information about ADE/ADR identification, reporting, and evaluation strategies in the ICU. Understanding the frequency with which institutions incorporate standardized operational ADE/ADR definitions, triggers, and evaluation tools in this population will facilitate benchmarking between hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether ADE/ADR identification, reporting, and evaluation strategies differ between ICU and non-ICU populations and to characterize ADE/ADR reporting strategies in the ICU.

METHODS

A validated survey was mailed to pharmacy directors at 590 randomly selected hospitals in the US having at least one ICU. A reminder was sent one week after the surveys were mailed. Five weeks later, a second survey was mailed to hospitals that did not respond.

RESULTS

The response rate was 22% (132/590); institutions were predominantly community (68.2%), with 199 or fewer (54.5%) operational beds and 19 or fewer (60.6%) ICU beds. ICU types included mixed medical/surgical (62.1%), medical (48.5%), surgical (31.8%), coronary (29.5%), neonatal (22.7%), and cardiothoracic (15.2%). Operational definitions for ADEs and ADRs varied little between ICU and non-ICU areas, as 92.4% of institutions used the same term for both settings. Triggers were used to identify ADE/ADRs hospital-wide (75%) and were usually the same between ICU and non-ICU areas (88.6%). ADE reporting was nearly always voluntary (94.7%), using paper reports (88.6%), phone calls (22.7%), e-mail (12.1%), Intranet (12.1%), Web-based/Internet (10.6%), or PDA (1.5%). Only 22% of hospitals tracked ICU-specific data.

CONCLUSIONS

ADE identification, reporting, and evaluation strategies are similar between ICU and non-ICU areas. Few institutions currently track ICU-specific ADE/ADR data. The institution of ICU-specific ADE detection and prevention strategies may improve the safety of critically ill patients.

摘要

背景

由于重症监护病房(ICU)中药物不良事件(ADEs)和药物不良反应(ADRs)的发生率高于医院其他科室,因此怀疑ICU和非ICU区域的ADE/ADR监测系统存在差异。然而,目前缺乏关于ICU中ADE/ADR识别、报告和评估策略的信息。了解各机构在该人群中采用标准化的ADE/ADR操作定义、触发因素和评估工具的频率,将有助于医院之间进行基准比较。

目的

确定ICU和非ICU人群在ADE/ADR识别、报告和评估策略上是否存在差异,并描述ICU中的ADE/ADR报告策略。

方法

向美国590家随机选取的、至少设有一个ICU的医院的药房主任邮寄一份经过验证的调查问卷。在问卷寄出一周后发送提醒。五周后,向未回复的医院再次邮寄问卷。

结果

回复率为22%(132/590);这些机构主要是社区医院(68.2%),拥有199张或更少的运营床位(54.5%)和19张或更少的ICU床位(60.6%)。ICU类型包括内科/外科混合(62.1%)、内科(48.5%)、外科(31.8%)、冠心病(29.5%)、新生儿(22.7%)和心胸外科(15.2%)。ICU和非ICU区域之间,ADE和ADR的操作定义差异不大,因为92.4%的机构在两种环境中使用相同的术语。触发因素用于全院范围内识别ADE/ADR(75%),并且在ICU和非ICU区域通常相同(88.6%)。ADE报告几乎总是自愿的(94.7%),使用纸质报告(88.6%)、电话(22.7%)、电子邮件(12.1%)、内联网(12.1%)、基于网络/互联网(10.6%)或个人数字助理(1.5%)。只有22%的医院跟踪ICU特定数据。

结论

ICU和非ICU区域在ADE识别、报告和评估策略方面相似。目前很少有机构跟踪ICU特定的ADE/ADR数据。制定ICU特定的ADE检测和预防策略可能会提高重症患者的安全性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验