• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在紧急大规模预防应对中使用非医务人员的效率和效果。

Efficiency and effectiveness of using nonmedical staff during an urgent mass prophylaxis response.

作者信息

Fletcher Malaya, Puerini Raymond, Caum Jessica, Alles Steven J

出版信息

Biosecur Bioterror. 2014 May-Jun;12(3):151-9. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2013.0087.

DOI:10.1089/bsp.2013.0087
PMID:24896307
Abstract

Using a simulated anthrax scenario, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health tested the readiness of a nonmedical closed point-of-dispensing (POD) site to see how rapidly and accurately it could provide medication to its internal population. This closed POD had developed and exercised its mass prophylaxis plan in conjunction with the local health department twice before, and the department was interested in assessing the impact of having no onsite department involvement. Two sessions were conducted as part of the overall exercise. In session 1, agency staff ran POD operations with no department involvement. During session 2, department staff provided an hour-long training session and oversaw POD operations. Mean throughput and accuracy rates of the 2 sessions were then compared to a previous health department public POD exercise staffed by department personnel and medical volunteers. The closed POD would be able to process the entire internal population in an estimated mean time of 23.9 hours. The accuracy rates for dispensing the correct medication during session 1 was 84.7% and 92.4% during session 2 (p=0.0012). Overall accuracy was significantly higher in a previous local health department public POD exercise (88.6% vs. 96.9%, p < 0.0001), as was pediatric dosing accuracy (p < 0.0001). We concluded that nonmedical closed PODs are a valuable strategy during a public health emergency that requires large segments of a population to receive medication rapidly. They must be activated judiciously, however, as their use may increase adverse events and potentially result in discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis should people choose not to finish the course. Local health department training and oversight reduce errors but may not always be available.

摘要

费城公共卫生部利用一个模拟炭疽病场景,测试了一个非医疗封闭式药品分发点(POD)的应急准备情况,以了解其向内部人员提供药物的速度和准确性。这个封闭式POD此前已与当地卫生部门联合制定并演练了两次大规模预防计划,该部门有兴趣评估在没有现场部门参与的情况下会产生怎样的影响。作为整体演练的一部分,进行了两次模拟。在第一次模拟中,机构工作人员在没有部门参与的情况下进行POD操作。在第二次模拟中,部门工作人员提供了为期一小时的培训课程并监督POD操作。然后将这两次模拟的平均吞吐量和准确率与之前由部门人员和医疗志愿者参与的卫生部门公共POD演练进行比较。该封闭式POD预计平均需要23.9小时才能为全体内部人员完成药物分发。第一次模拟中分发正确药物的准确率为84.7%,第二次模拟中为92.4%(p = 0.0012)。在之前当地卫生部门的公共POD演练中,总体准确率显著更高(88.6%对96.9%,p < 0.0001),儿科用药准确率也是如此(p < 0.0001)。我们得出结论,在公共卫生紧急情况下,非医疗封闭式POD是一种有价值的策略,此时需要大量人群迅速获得药物。然而,必须谨慎启用它们,因为使用它们可能会增加不良事件,并且如果人们选择不完成疗程,可能会导致抗生素预防用药中断。当地卫生部门的培训和监督可以减少错误,但可能并非总能实现。

相似文献

1
Efficiency and effectiveness of using nonmedical staff during an urgent mass prophylaxis response.在紧急大规模预防应对中使用非医务人员的效率和效果。
Biosecur Bioterror. 2014 May-Jun;12(3):151-9. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2013.0087.
2
Field testing a head-of-household method to dispense antibiotics.对一种用于分发抗生素的户主方法进行现场测试。
Biosecur Bioterror. 2007 Sep;5(3):255-67. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2006.0022.
3
The planning, execution, and evaluation of a mass prophylaxis full-scale exercise in cook county, IL.伊利诺伊州库克县大规模预防全面演习的规划、执行与评估。
Biosecur Bioterror. 2014 Mar-Apr;12(2):106-16. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2013.0089. Epub 2014 Apr 3.
4
A national study examining closed points of dispensing (PODs): existence, preparedness, exercise participation, and training provided.一项关于检查配药点(PODs)封闭情况的全国性研究:配药点的存在情况、准备情况、参与演练情况以及所提供的培训。
Biosecur Bioterror. 2014 Jul-Aug;12(4):208-16. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2014.0014. Epub 2014 Jul 11.
5
A large-scale points-of-dispensing exercise for first responders and first receivers in Nassau County, New York.纽约拿骚县为急救人员和首批接收者开展的大规模药品分发活动。
Biosecur Bioterror. 2010 Mar;8(1):25-35. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2009.0014.
6
A Calculation Tool and Process to Pre-Position Pharmaceuticals for Anthrax Post-Exposure Prophylaxis.炭疽暴露后预防用药品预置计算工具和流程
Health Secur. 2017 Nov/Dec;15(6):569-574. doi: 10.1089/hs.2017.0032. Epub 2017 Nov 14.
7
Are US jurisdictions prepared to dispense medical countermeasures through open points of dispensing? Findings from a national study.美国司法管辖区是否准备通过开放式分发点分发医疗对策?一项全国性研究的结果。
Health Secur. 2015 Mar-Apr;13(2):96-105. doi: 10.1089/hs.2014.0080. Epub 2015 Mar 16.
8
Operational evaluation of high-throughput community-based mass prophylaxis using Just-in-time training.基于即时培训的高通量社区大规模预防的操作评估
Public Health Rep. 2007 Sep-Oct;122(5):584-91. doi: 10.1177/003335490712200505.
9
Uncertainty and operational considerations in mass prophylaxis workforce planning.大规模预防措施劳动力规划中的不确定性和操作考虑因素。
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009 Dec;3 Suppl 2:S121-31. doi: 10.1097/DMP.0b013e3181be9c39.
10
The 49th hour: analysis of a follow-up medication and vaccine dispensing field test.第 49 小时:后续药物和疫苗配发实地测试分析。
Health Secur. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):54-63. doi: 10.1089/hs.2014.0078.

引用本文的文献

1
Allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic: rapid systematic review update of strategies for policymakers.大流行期间稀缺资源的分配:面向政策制定者的策略快速系统评价更新。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Nov;139:255-263. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.021. Epub 2021 May 25.