• 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

在医院环境中寻找药物安全水平的共识:改良 Delphi 法的制定及其应用实例。

Finding Consensus About the Level of Medication Safety in a Hospital Setting: Development and an Example of Application of a Modified Delphi Method.

机构信息

Pharmacy Department, Clinic Hietzing, Vienna Healthcare Group, Vienna, Austria.

Karl Landsteiner Institute for Clinical Risk Management, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2021 Sep 14;9:630398. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.630398. eCollection 2021.

DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2021.630398
PMID:34604148
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8480327/
Abstract

A version of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) questionnaire adapted to the Austrian inpatient setting was used to sample the estimates of a group of experts regarding the level of medication safety in a level II hospital. To synthesize expert opinions on a group level reproducibly, classical Delphi method elements were combined with an item weight and performance weight decision-maker. This newly developed information synthesis method was applied to the sample dataset to examine method applicability. Method descriptions and flow diagrams were generated. Applicability was then tested by creating a synthesis of individual questionnaires. An estimate of the level of medication safety in an Austrian level II hospital was, thus, generated. Over the past two decades, initiatives regarding patient safety, in general, and medication safety, in particular, have been gaining momentum. Questionnaires are state of the art for assessing medication practice in healthcare facilities. Acquiring consistent data about medication in the complex setting of a hospital, however, has not been standardized. There are no publicly available benchmark datasets and, in particular, there is no published method to reliably synthesize expertise regarding medication safety on an expert group level. The group-level information synthesis method developed in this study has the potential to synthesize information about the level of medication safety in a hospital setting more reliably than unstructured approaches. A medication safety level estimate for a representative Austrian level II hospital was generated. Further studies are needed to establish convergence characteristics and benchmarks for medication safety on a larger scale.

摘要

一份经过改编适用于奥地利住院环境的安全用药实践研究所(ISMP)问卷被用来抽样一组专家对二级医院药物安全性水平的估计。为了在群体水平上可重复地综合专家意见,经典德尔菲法元素与项目权重和表现权重决策者相结合。这种新开发的信息综合方法应用于样本数据集,以检验方法的适用性。生成了方法描述和流程图。然后通过创建个人问卷的综合来测试适用性。从而生成了对奥地利二级医院药物安全性水平的估计。在过去的二十年中,关于患者安全的举措,一般来说,以及药物安全,特别是,一直在获得动力。问卷调查是评估医疗保健设施中药物实践的最新方法。然而,在医院这种复杂环境中获取关于药物的一致数据尚未标准化。没有公开的基准数据集,特别是没有发表的方法可以可靠地在专家组层面上综合关于药物安全性的专门知识。本研究中开发的组级信息综合方法有可能比非结构化方法更可靠地综合有关医院环境中药物安全性水平的信息。为一家有代表性的奥地利二级医院生成了药物安全性水平的估计。需要进一步的研究来在更大的范围内建立药物安全性的收敛特征和基准。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/3cfc379abc8e/fpubh-09-630398-g0005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/ee7b86a1ca23/fpubh-09-630398-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/2132a7431462/fpubh-09-630398-g0002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/cb1081f049d5/fpubh-09-630398-g0003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/5b668665b8bb/fpubh-09-630398-g0004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/3cfc379abc8e/fpubh-09-630398-g0005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/ee7b86a1ca23/fpubh-09-630398-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/2132a7431462/fpubh-09-630398-g0002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/cb1081f049d5/fpubh-09-630398-g0003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/5b668665b8bb/fpubh-09-630398-g0004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/967a/8480327/3cfc379abc8e/fpubh-09-630398-g0005.jpg

相似文献

1
Finding Consensus About the Level of Medication Safety in a Hospital Setting: Development and an Example of Application of a Modified Delphi Method.在医院环境中寻找药物安全水平的共识:改良 Delphi 法的制定及其应用实例。
Front Public Health. 2021 Sep 14;9:630398. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.630398. eCollection 2021.
2
Adapting and remodelling the US Institute for Safe Medication Practices' Medication Safety Self-Assessment tool for hospitals to be used to support national medication safety initiatives in Finland.改编美国安全用药实践研究所的医院用药安全自我评估工具,以用于支持芬兰的国家用药安全倡议。
Int J Pharm Pract. 2016 Aug;24(4):262-70. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12238. Epub 2016 Jan 25.
3
Patient safety priorities in mental healthcare in Switzerland: a modified Delphi study.瑞士精神卫生保健中的患者安全优先事项:一项改良德尔菲研究
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 5;6(8):e011494. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011494.
4
360-degree Delphi: addressing sociotechnical challenges of healthcare IT.360 度德尔菲法:应对医疗信息技术的社会技术挑战。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Jun 5;20(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-1071-x.
5
International recommendations for national patient safety incident reporting systems: an expert Delphi consensus-building process.国家患者安全事件报告系统的国际建议:专家德尔菲共识达成过程
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Feb;26(2):150-163. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004456. Epub 2016 Feb 22.
6
Defining electronic-prescribing and infusion-related medication errors in paediatric intensive care - a Delphi study.定义儿科重症监护中与电子医嘱和输液相关的用药错误——一项德尔菲研究。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Dec 7;18(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0713-8.
7
Identifying research priorities for patient safety in mental health: an international expert Delphi study.确定精神卫生领域患者安全的研究重点:一项国际专家德尔菲研究
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 3;8(3):e021361. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021361.
8
Development of a consensus-base list of criteria for prescribing medication in a pediatric population.制定一份关于儿科人群用药处方的基于共识的标准清单。
Int J Clin Pharm. 2015 Oct;37(5):883-94. doi: 10.1007/s11096-015-0139-7. Epub 2015 May 28.
9
Designing a safety checklist for dental implant placement: a Delphi study.设计牙种植体植入安全检查表:一项德尔菲研究。
J Am Dent Assoc. 2014 Feb;145(2):131-40. doi: 10.14219/jada.2013.15.
10
Medication safety problems priorities in community pharmacy in Saudi Arabia: a multi-stakeholder Delphi study using the human factors framework.沙特阿拉伯社区药房的用药安全问题优先级:一项使用人为因素框架的多利益相关方德尔菲研究
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 5;9(11):e032419. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032419.

引用本文的文献

1
Development and validation of a medication safety self-assessment tool for primary healthcare settings in China.中国基层医疗卫生机构用药安全自我评估工具的开发与验证
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Aug 5;12:1584286. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1584286. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England.英格兰药物错误的流行情况及其临床和经济负担的经济分析。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Feb;30(2):96-105. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010206. Epub 2020 Jun 11.
2
Incidence and prevalence of intravenous medication errors in the UK: a systematic review.英国静脉药物错误的发生率和流行率:系统评价。
Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2020 Jan;27(1):3-8. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-001624. Epub 2018 Oct 23.
3
The Role of Expert Judgment in Statistical Inference and Evidence-Based Decision-Making.
专家判断在统计推断和循证决策中的作用。
Am Stat. 2019 Mar 20;73(1):56-68. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2018.1529623. eCollection 2019.
4
Mindlines: making sense of evidence in practice.思维脉络:理解实践中的证据
Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Aug;66(649):402-3. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X686221.
5
There is data, and then there is data: only experimental evidence will determine the utility of differential weighting of expert judgment.
Risk Anal. 2015 Jan;35(1):21-6. doi: 10.1111/risa.12345.
6
Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research.定性研究中的效度和信度问题。
Evid Based Nurs. 2015 Apr;18(2):34-5. doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102054. Epub 2015 Feb 4.
7
Delphi: Somewhere between Scylla and Charybdis?德尔菲法:在斯库拉和卡律布狄斯之间的某个地方?
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Oct 14;111(41):E4284. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415425111. Epub 2014 Sep 19.
8
Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.报告定性研究的标准:建议的综合。
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.
9
Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.利用(和滥用)专家判断支持公共政策决策。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 May 20;111(20):7176-84. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319946111. Epub 2014 May 12.
10
Assessing the state of safe medication practices using the ISMP Medication Safety Self Assessment for Hospitals: 2000 and 2011.使用ISMP医院用药安全自我评估工具评估2000年和2011年安全用药实践状况。
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014 Feb;40(2):51-67. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(14)40007-2.