医师回顾临床药师在住院病人护理中的重要干预措施。

H T Hatoum, R A Hutchinson, L R Elliott, D L Kendzierski
{"title":"医师回顾临床药师在住院病人护理中的重要干预措施。","authors":"H T Hatoum,&nbsp;R A Hutchinson,&nbsp;L R Elliott,&nbsp;D L Kendzierski","doi":"10.1177/106002808802201211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical pharmacists in this study hospital reported 1027 interventions in patient drug therapy over two time periods of three and two weeks each. When peer-reviewed for clinical significance, 36 of these interventions were deemed significant in terms of saving patients' lives or preserving major organ functions; 983 were judged to improve drug therapy to an acceptable level based on standards of the professional literature (8 recommendations were informational i.e., not clinically significant). These 36 interventions were subjected to an independent, blind review by three practicing physicians who were given the same ranking system for clinical relevance as the one used by the peer reviewers. The physicians independently concurred with the peer reviewers on the two interventions initially ranked as 6 (lifesaving in nature). Of the interventions ranked 5 (preserving major organ functions) by the peer-review group, 53 percent were given a rank of 5 by the physicians. However, the remaining 47 percent were given a rank of 4 (upgrading patient drug therapy to the most appropriate level based on professionally accepted standards). In this era of program evaluation and justification, the process of encouraging other health professionals to review pharmacists' contribution to patient care should not be overlooked.</p>","PeriodicalId":77709,"journal":{"name":"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy","volume":"22 12","pages":"980-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/106002808802201211","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physicians' review of significant interventions by clinical pharmacists in inpatient care.\",\"authors\":\"H T Hatoum,&nbsp;R A Hutchinson,&nbsp;L R Elliott,&nbsp;D L Kendzierski\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/106002808802201211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinical pharmacists in this study hospital reported 1027 interventions in patient drug therapy over two time periods of three and two weeks each. When peer-reviewed for clinical significance, 36 of these interventions were deemed significant in terms of saving patients' lives or preserving major organ functions; 983 were judged to improve drug therapy to an acceptable level based on standards of the professional literature (8 recommendations were informational i.e., not clinically significant). These 36 interventions were subjected to an independent, blind review by three practicing physicians who were given the same ranking system for clinical relevance as the one used by the peer reviewers. The physicians independently concurred with the peer reviewers on the two interventions initially ranked as 6 (lifesaving in nature). Of the interventions ranked 5 (preserving major organ functions) by the peer-review group, 53 percent were given a rank of 5 by the physicians. However, the remaining 47 percent were given a rank of 4 (upgrading patient drug therapy to the most appropriate level based on professionally accepted standards). In this era of program evaluation and justification, the process of encouraging other health professionals to review pharmacists' contribution to patient care should not be overlooked.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"22 12\",\"pages\":\"980-2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1988-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/106002808802201211\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/106002808802201211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106002808802201211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

本研究医院的临床药师报告了1027例患者药物治疗干预,每个干预周期为3周和2周。在对临床意义进行同行评审时,这些干预措施中有36项被认为在挽救患者生命或保持主要器官功能方面具有重要意义;根据专业文献的标准,983项建议被认为将药物治疗改善到可接受的水平(8项建议是信息性的,即没有临床意义)。这36项干预措施由三名执业医生进行独立的盲评,他们的临床相关性排名系统与同行审稿人使用的排名系统相同。医生独立地同意同行评议者对最初排名为6(本质上是挽救生命)的两种干预措施的评价。在同行评议小组给出的5级干预措施(保留主要器官功能)中,有53%的干预措施被医生评为5级。然而,剩下的47%被评为4级(根据专业接受的标准将患者药物治疗提升到最合适的水平)。在这个项目评估和论证的时代,鼓励其他卫生专业人员审查药剂师对病人护理的贡献的过程不应被忽视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Physicians' review of significant interventions by clinical pharmacists in inpatient care.

Clinical pharmacists in this study hospital reported 1027 interventions in patient drug therapy over two time periods of three and two weeks each. When peer-reviewed for clinical significance, 36 of these interventions were deemed significant in terms of saving patients' lives or preserving major organ functions; 983 were judged to improve drug therapy to an acceptable level based on standards of the professional literature (8 recommendations were informational i.e., not clinically significant). These 36 interventions were subjected to an independent, blind review by three practicing physicians who were given the same ranking system for clinical relevance as the one used by the peer reviewers. The physicians independently concurred with the peer reviewers on the two interventions initially ranked as 6 (lifesaving in nature). Of the interventions ranked 5 (preserving major organ functions) by the peer-review group, 53 percent were given a rank of 5 by the physicians. However, the remaining 47 percent were given a rank of 4 (upgrading patient drug therapy to the most appropriate level based on professionally accepted standards). In this era of program evaluation and justification, the process of encouraging other health professionals to review pharmacists' contribution to patient care should not be overlooked.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信