Suppr超能文献

药剂师、实习生和药房技术员在药房进行药物转移的描述与比较。

Description and comparison of medication diversion in pharmacies by pharmacists, interns, and pharmacy technicians.

作者信息

Draime Juanita A, Anderson Douglas C, Anderson Timothy S

出版信息

J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2018 May-Jun;58(3):275-280. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2018.02.009. Epub 2018 Mar 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

  1. To describe reported medication diversion within the practice of pharmacy; and 2) to compare diversion by employee type.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

A sample of state board of pharmacy records was examined from 9 states. Disciplinary actions were obtained from the records for the time period of May 2008 to May 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Pharmacy employees (pharmacist, technician, interns).

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

When a diversion case was identified, the following items were obtained for each case of medication diversion: 1) category of pharmacy employee (pharmacist, technician, intern); 2) type of substance (control, noncontrol, both); 3) use of diverted substance (sale, personal use, both, undetermined); and 4) action taken by the board.

RESULTS

A total of 811 medication diversion cases in 9 states were identified. Most cases involved a pharmacy technician (71.4%), controlled substances only (94.2%), and diversion for personal use (46.6%) and resulted in license or registration revocation or surrender (62.5%). When examining medication diversion use by purpose for diversion, there were significant differences by pharmacy employee type (sale use: P = 0.003; personal use: P = 0.032; unknown use: P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Medication diversion is a pressing problem. There were 811 cases examined by 9 state boards, and many cases may be unreported. Technicians represent nearly three-fourths of diversions. It is essential that the practice of pharmacy identifies and assesses strategies to reduce medication diversion.

摘要

目的

1)描述药学实践中报告的药物转移情况;2)比较不同员工类型的药物转移情况。

设计

回顾性研究。

背景

从9个州的州药房委员会记录样本中进行检查。获取了2008年5月至2013年5月期间记录中的纪律处分情况。

参与者

药房员工(药剂师、技术员、实习生)。

干预措施

不适用。

主要观察指标

当识别出一起药物转移案件时,针对每起药物转移案件获取以下信息:1)药房员工类别(药剂师、技术员、实习生);2)物质类型(管制、非管制、两者皆有);3)转移物质的用途(销售、个人使用、两者皆有、未确定);4)委员会采取的行动。

结果

在9个州共识别出811起药物转移案件。大多数案件涉及药房技术员(71.4%),仅涉及管制物质(94.2%),转移用于个人使用(46.6%),并导致执照或注册被吊销或放弃(62.5%)。在按转移目的检查药物转移用途时,不同药房员工类型存在显著差异(销售用途:P = 0.003;个人使用:P = 0.032;用途不明:P < 0.001)。

结论

药物转移是一个紧迫的问题。9个州委员会检查了811起案件,许多案件可能未被报告。技术员占转移案件的近四分之三。药学实践必须识别并评估减少药物转移的策略。

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