居家用药评估服务的系统评价

发布时间：2018-05-28 12:19

  本文选题：药师 + 居家用药评估　； 参考：《中国现代应用药学》2016年01期

【摘要】：目的系统评价国内外居家用药评估(Home medicines review,HMR)服务的实施现状。方法计算机检索以下数据库:Cochrane Library、Pub Med、Embase、CNKI、CBM、VIP和万方数据库,检索时间截止2014年9月。纳入HMR相关的中英文研究,对所纳入的RCT文献,采用Rev Man 5.1软件进行Meta分析,其余文献采用描述性分析。结果共纳入27项研究,其中包括10项RCTs,17项其他研究。Meta分析显示,HMR组较对照组的药物相关问题减少20.8%~70.4%;HMR组的再入院率高于对照组(38.34%vs 33.63%),但差异无统计学意义(P=0.64);死亡率未明显降低,差异无统计学意义。HMR组较对照组的满意度高,2组HMR接受度及生活质量评分差异均无统计学意义。HMR的实施困难包括医师、药师、患者及模式自身问题。结论实施HMR面临多方面困难,HMR是否能显著改善患者各项结局指标还有待更多大样本、高质量研究来证实。
[Abstract]:Objective to evaluate the status of Home medicines Review (HMRs) service at home and abroad. Methods the following databases were searched by computer: Cochrane Library Pub Medbase (CNKI) CBMU VIP and Wanfang database. The retrieval time was up to September 2014. The Chinese and English studies related to HMR were included. The RCT literature was analyzed by Rev Man 5.1 software and the rest by descriptive analysis. Results A total of 27 studies were included, including 10 RCTsN 17 other studies. Meta-analysis showed that the readmission rate in HMR group was higher than that in control group (38.34 vs 33.63), but there was no significant difference between HMR group and control group. The difference of HMR acceptance and quality of life score between the two groups was not statistically significant. The difficulty of implementing HMR included doctors, pharmacists, patients and the model itself. Conclusion there are many difficulties in the implementation of HMR.
【作者单位】： 重庆医科大学附属第一医院药学部;
【分类号】：R95
，

本文编号：1946671