Winterstein Almut G, Hartzema Abraham G
College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Healthcare Administration, University of Florida, PO Box 100496, Gainesville, FL 32610-0496, USA.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2005 Sep;1(3):430-45. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2005.07.001.
Lack of appropriate drug therapy in asthma patients is a recognized quality problem leading to preventable emergency room visits, hospitalizations, or death. While indicators measuring pharmacotherapy quality on the level of prescribers and third party payers are widely used, no such indicators exist for pharmacies.
This study aimed to (1) develop quality indicators for asthma care applicable to retail pharmacies, (2) estimate the prevalence of inappropriate asthma drug therapy, and (3) explore variation in the quality of care across pharmacies.
We present a descriptive analysis of automated patient-specific dispensing data from February 1, 2000 to January 31, 2001 of beta-agonists and anti-inflammatory agents with a Food and Drug Administration-approved indication for asthma. Two quality indicators of potentially inappropriate drug therapy were applied: (1) the proportion of patients who obtained more than a 360-day supply (assuming maximum acceptable daily dose) of short-term beta-agonists (SABA) including all inhaler types, inhaler solutions, and syrups during the 12-month study and (2) the proportion of patients with 2 consecutive early refills of defined SABAs. Indicator values with 95% confidence intervals are reported for each pharmacy.
Pharmacies had an average of 328 (range 169-534) patients who received SABAs. An average of 11 patients per pharmacy (3.4% of all patients who received SABAs) met the indicator 1 definition. The second indicator identified 8.2% (27) patients per pharmacy as short-term SABA overusers (range 3.9-11.9%). Of these, 48% did not receive any anti-inflammatory agents during the time frame when SABA overuse occurred.
Application of drug therapy quality indicators at the level of individual pharmacies using dispensing data is feasible and identifies opportunities for quality improvement. Indicator 2 is most appropriate for daily practice, because it allows for timely identification of potentially uncontrolled patients, and offers a balance between indicator sensitivity and positive predictive value.
哮喘患者缺乏适当的药物治疗是一个公认的质量问题,会导致可预防的急诊就诊、住院或死亡。虽然衡量处方者和第三方支付者层面药物治疗质量的指标被广泛使用,但药房层面却没有此类指标。
本研究旨在(1)制定适用于零售药房的哮喘护理质量指标,(2)估计不适当哮喘药物治疗的患病率,以及(3)探讨各药房护理质量的差异。
我们对2000年2月1日至2001年1月31日期间β-激动剂和抗炎药的自动化患者特定配药数据进行了描述性分析,这些药物具有美国食品药品监督管理局批准的哮喘适应症。应用了两个潜在不适当药物治疗的质量指标:(1)在为期12个月的研究期间,获得超过360天供应量(假设每日最大可接受剂量)的短期β-激动剂(SABA,包括所有吸入器类型、吸入溶液和糖浆)的患者比例,以及(2)连续两次提前重新配药特定SABA的患者比例。报告了每个药房的指标值及其95%置信区间。
各药房平均有328名(范围为169 - 534名)患者接受了SABA。每个药房平均有11名患者(占所有接受SABA患者的3.4%)符合指标1的定义。第二个指标确定每个药房有8.2%(27名)患者为短期SABA过度使用者(范围为3.9 - 11.9%)。其中,48%的患者在发生SABA过度使用期间未接受任何抗炎药治疗。
利用配药数据在个体药房层面应用药物治疗质量指标是可行的,并能识别质量改进的机会。指标2最适合日常实践,因为它能够及时识别潜在未得到控制的患者,并且在指标敏感性和阳性预测值之间取得了平衡。