四周插入中心导管的药物验证:四年实施。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Virginie Tournayre, Julien Frandon, Maria Pitard, Virginie Chasseigne
{"title":"四周插入中心导管的药物验证:四年实施。","authors":"Virginie Tournayre, Julien Frandon, Maria Pitard, Virginie Chasseigne","doi":"10.1136/ejhpharm-2025-004525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are used in clinical settings for mid- to long-term intravenous therapies, including chemotherapy and antibiotics. However, their use involves risks such as infections, thrombosis or occlusions. Pharmacist-led analysis and validation of PICC requests aims to optimise their use and reduce complications. This study evaluates the sustainability of pharmacist-led PICC analysis and validation in a university hospital and investigates the organisation of PICC management in French healthcare institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted, analysing PICC requests from April 2018 to October 2021. Pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) were categorised based on their targets: applicants, installers or users. A national survey was also conducted to assess PICC practices across French hospitals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 5503 requests over a 42-month period, 59.9% (3297) required at least one PI, totalling 4406 PIs. Most were directed at installers (69.2%), followed by applicants (18.4%) and users (12.4%). Pharmacists refused 4.1% (223) of requests, mainly due to alternative functional access or contraindications. Despite pharmacist validation, 14.0% (771) of PICC placements were later cancelled by the medical team (ie, transfer of the patient). The national survey revealed limited adoption of pharmaceutical validation, with only two centres (5%) implementing it out of 37 respondents, even though 40 centres (98%) had over 2 years of experience with PICCs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pharmacist-led PICCs validation improves patient safety and optimises device use, demonstrating its value and sustainability in clinical practice. The percentage of refusals has remained stable since our pilot study in 2018 in the same centre, probably due to fast staff turnover. Wider implementation of this practice requires addressing resource limitations, raising awareness about the pharmacist's role in managing medical devices, and frequent training.</p>","PeriodicalId":12050,"journal":{"name":"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmaceutical validation of peripherally inserted central catheters: four years of implementation.\",\"authors\":\"Virginie Tournayre, Julien Frandon, Maria Pitard, Virginie Chasseigne\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/ejhpharm-2025-004525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are used in clinical settings for mid- to long-term intravenous therapies, including chemotherapy and antibiotics. However, their use involves risks such as infections, thrombosis or occlusions. Pharmacist-led analysis and validation of PICC requests aims to optimise their use and reduce complications. This study evaluates the sustainability of pharmacist-led PICC analysis and validation in a university hospital and investigates the organisation of PICC management in French healthcare institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted, analysing PICC requests from April 2018 to October 2021. Pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) were categorised based on their targets: applicants, installers or users. A national survey was also conducted to assess PICC practices across French hospitals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 5503 requests over a 42-month period, 59.9% (3297) required at least one PI, totalling 4406 PIs. Most were directed at installers (69.2%), followed by applicants (18.4%) and users (12.4%). Pharmacists refused 4.1% (223) of requests, mainly due to alternative functional access or contraindications. Despite pharmacist validation, 14.0% (771) of PICC placements were later cancelled by the medical team (ie, transfer of the patient). The national survey revealed limited adoption of pharmaceutical validation, with only two centres (5%) implementing it out of 37 respondents, even though 40 centres (98%) had over 2 years of experience with PICCs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pharmacist-led PICCs validation improves patient safety and optimises device use, demonstrating its value and sustainability in clinical practice. The percentage of refusals has remained stable since our pilot study in 2018 in the same centre, probably due to fast staff turnover. Wider implementation of this practice requires addressing resource limitations, raising awareness about the pharmacist's role in managing medical devices, and frequent training.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2025-004525\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2025-004525","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:外周插入中心导管(PICCs)用于临床中长期静脉注射治疗,包括化疗和抗生素。然而,它们的使用存在感染、血栓形成或闭塞等风险。药剂师主导的PICC请求分析和验证旨在优化其使用并减少并发症。本研究评估了一所大学医院药剂师主导的PICC分析和验证的可持续性,并调查了法国医疗机构PICC管理的组织。方法:进行单中心回顾性观察研究,分析2018年4月至2021年10月中国人民保险公司的申请。药物干预(pi)根据其目标进行分类:申请人,安装者或用户。还进行了一项全国调查,以评估法国各医院的人保业务。结果:在42个月期间的5503个请求中,59.9%(3297个)至少需要一个PI,总计4406个PI。大多数是针对安装人员(69.2%),其次是申请人(18.4%)和用户(12.4%)。药剂师拒绝了4.1%(223)的请求,主要是由于替代功能通道或禁忌症。尽管药剂师验证,14.0%(771)的PICC安置后来被医疗团队取消(即转移患者)。全国调查显示,药物验证的采用有限,在37个受访者中,只有两个中心(5%)实施了药物验证,尽管40个中心(98%)在picc方面有超过2年的经验。结论:药师主导的PICCs验证提高了患者的安全性,优化了器械的使用,证明了其在临床实践中的价值和可持续性。自2018年我们在同一中心进行试点研究以来,拒绝率一直保持稳定,这可能是由于员工流动迅速。更广泛地实施这种做法需要解决资源限制,提高对药剂师在管理医疗设备中的作用的认识,并经常进行培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pharmaceutical validation of peripherally inserted central catheters: four years of implementation.

Objectives: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are used in clinical settings for mid- to long-term intravenous therapies, including chemotherapy and antibiotics. However, their use involves risks such as infections, thrombosis or occlusions. Pharmacist-led analysis and validation of PICC requests aims to optimise their use and reduce complications. This study evaluates the sustainability of pharmacist-led PICC analysis and validation in a university hospital and investigates the organisation of PICC management in French healthcare institutions.

Methods: A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted, analysing PICC requests from April 2018 to October 2021. Pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) were categorised based on their targets: applicants, installers or users. A national survey was also conducted to assess PICC practices across French hospitals.

Results: Of the 5503 requests over a 42-month period, 59.9% (3297) required at least one PI, totalling 4406 PIs. Most were directed at installers (69.2%), followed by applicants (18.4%) and users (12.4%). Pharmacists refused 4.1% (223) of requests, mainly due to alternative functional access or contraindications. Despite pharmacist validation, 14.0% (771) of PICC placements were later cancelled by the medical team (ie, transfer of the patient). The national survey revealed limited adoption of pharmaceutical validation, with only two centres (5%) implementing it out of 37 respondents, even though 40 centres (98%) had over 2 years of experience with PICCs.

Conclusions: Pharmacist-led PICCs validation improves patient safety and optimises device use, demonstrating its value and sustainability in clinical practice. The percentage of refusals has remained stable since our pilot study in 2018 in the same centre, probably due to fast staff turnover. Wider implementation of this practice requires addressing resource limitations, raising awareness about the pharmacist's role in managing medical devices, and frequent training.

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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
104
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy (EJHP) offers a high quality, peer-reviewed platform for the publication of practical and innovative research which aims to strengthen the profile and professional status of hospital pharmacists. EJHP is committed to being the leading journal on all aspects of hospital pharmacy, thereby advancing the science, practice and profession of hospital pharmacy. The journal aims to become a major source for education and inspiration to improve practice and the standard of patient care in hospitals and related institutions worldwide. EJHP is the only official journal of the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信