Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013 Aug 1;70(15):1313-21. doi: 10.2146/ajhp120442.
The results of a survey evaluating pharmacy services and technology use at critical access hospitals (CAHs) and other small and rural hospitals in Illinois are reported.
A mail survey was sent to pharmacy directors at 86 CAHs and other rural and small hospitals in Illinois not designated as CAHs. Independent sample t tests and chi-square statistics were used to compare CAHs and non-CAHs in areas such as pharmacy services, staffing, use of technology, and sterile compounding practices.
The survey response rate was 46.5%, with usable data received from 40 hospitals. Analysis of the survey data indicated that hospitals designated as CAHs were significantly less likely than non-CAHs to have automatic therapeutic interchange policies (p = 0.012) and more likely to conduct pharmacist-provided educational programs on medication costs for physicians and other health care personnel (p = 0.037). Relative to non-CAHs, CAHs were significantly less likely to have automated dispensing cabinets (p = 0.016) and to out-source the preparation of sterile products to offsite vendors (p = 0.012); pharmacy directors at CAHs were less likely to report the use of technology for remote medication order entry or review (p = 0.038). At both types of facilities, pharmacists typically have both distributive and clinical responsibilities, and patient-specific clinical pharmacy services (e.g., patient education or counseling, other drug therapy monitoring, medication reconciliation, pharmacokinetic consultations) are offered at similar frequencies.
A survey of pharmacy departments at small and rural hospitals in Illinois determined that there were more similarities than differences between CAHs and non-CAHs. The survey indicated significant differences in dispensing processes, the use of technology and drug policy tools, and outsourcing of sterile product preparation.
报告了一项评估伊利诺伊州基层医疗保健机构(CAH)和其他小型农村医院药房服务和技术使用情况的调查结果。
向伊利诺伊州的 86 家 CAH 和其他非 CAH 的农村和小型医院的药房主任邮寄了一份调查问卷。采用独立样本 t 检验和卡方检验比较了 CAH 和非 CAH 在药房服务、人员配备、技术使用和无菌制剂实践等方面的差异。
调查回复率为 46.5%,共收到 40 家医院的有效数据。对调查数据的分析表明,被指定为 CAH 的医院与非 CAH 相比,更不可能实施自动治疗转换政策(p=0.012),更有可能为医生和其他医疗保健人员提供药物费用方面的药师教育项目(p=0.037)。与非 CAH 相比,CAH 更不可能拥有自动化发药柜(p=0.016),也更不可能将无菌产品的制备外包给外部供应商(p=0.012);CAH 的药房主任更不可能报告使用技术进行远程药物医嘱录入或审核(p=0.038)。在这两种类型的医疗机构中,药剂师通常同时承担配药和临床职责,提供患者特定的临床药学服务(例如,患者教育或咨询、其他药物治疗监测、药物重整、药代动力学咨询)的频率相似。
对伊利诺伊州小型农村医院的药房部门进行的调查发现,CAH 和非 CAH 之间的相似之处多于差异。调查表明,在配药流程、技术和药物政策工具的使用以及无菌产品制备的外包方面存在显著差异。