|
| 全面触发工具回顾性监测与自愿上报的药品不良事件比较 |
| Comparing the Adverse Drug Events Monitored by Retrospective Global Trigger Tool and Spontaneous Reporting Methods |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 全面触发工具 自愿报告 药品不良事件 主动监测 |
| 英文关键词:Global Trigger Tool Spontaneous reporting Adverse drug event Active monitoring |
| 基金项目:2014年合肥市自主创新政策“借转补”项目 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1469 |
| 全文下载次数: 1015 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 摘 要 目的：比较应用美国健康促进研究所推出的全面触发工具（GTT）主动监测药品不良事件（ADE）与采用自愿报告系统上报的ADE，为更好地应用两种监测方法预防和减少药品不良事件提供参考。方法：回顾性分析某院2014年应用GTT监测的成年住院患者的ADE与同期医院自愿报告的ADE的特点。结果：自愿上报ADE的可预防率为4.08%，GTT监测为18.75%。ADE相关患者中内科明显多于外科。自愿上报ADE中E级为主，且有F级、H级事件，GTT监测的ADE中E级与F级事件较多。ADE涉及的给药途径以静滴、口服和皮下给药为主，涉及的药品中频率最高的是中药、抗肿瘤药和胰岛素。结论：GTT监测与自愿上报两种方法监测到的ADE类型有一定互补性，建议医疗机构同时应用两种方法，以更好地预防和减少ADE的发生。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| ABSTRACT Objective:By comparing the ADEs monitored by spontaneous reporting and the Global Trigger Tool（GTT） developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, to provide some reference for better application of the two monitoring methods to prevent and reduce ADE. Methods:The characteristics of the ADEs monitored by spontaneous reporting method which caused harm to adult inpatients in 2014 were compared retrospectively with the ADEs monitored by GTT. Results:4.08% ADEs monitored by spontaneous reporting were preventable, and 18.75% for GTT. The patients encountered ADEs came from department of internal medicine significantly more than surgery. Most of the ADEs monitored by spontaneous reporting were categorized into E level with some into E and F and H level, while there were more ADEs categorized into E and F level monitored by GTT. The most drug delivery routes related to the ADEs were intravenous drip, oral and subcutaneous, and the most drugs were traditional Chinese medicine, antineoplastic drug and insulin.Conclusion:There were certain complementarity between the ADEs monitored by the two methods, and it was suggested for medical institutions to apply the two methods at the same time to prevent and reduce ADE more effectively. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
