PIVAS集中排药模式与传统排药模式的应用效果比较

发布时间：2018-06-26 20:07

  本文选题：静脉用药集中调配中心 + 集中排药模式　； 参考：《中国药房》2016年28期

【摘要】：目的:比较静脉用药集中调配中心(PIVAS)两种排药模式的应用效果,促进PIVAS的发展。方法:选取我院PIVAS中心院区(采用传统排药模式,对照组)和东院区(采用集中排药模式,观察组)2015年第三季度92天内的调配工作相关资料进行回顾分析,介绍为实施集中排药模式采取的配套管理措施;从平均排药时间、平均核对时间、平均配制时间、平均总调配时间、药品破损量、空针使用量、工作差错数等方面进行比较。结果:集中排药模式需在传统排药模式基础上通过增设软硬件及重新排班等实现;对照组与观察组上述前6个指标分别为1.5、0.7 h,1.8、1.1 h,4.4、3.4 h,7.1、5.9 h,4.9、2.8支,576、348个(P0.05);两组工作差错数分别为0.58、0.60次(P0.05)。结论:集中排药模式可以缩短各环节工作时间,减轻工作强度,并能够降低药品破损量、空针使用量,但其需要较高的软硬件设施的支持;传统排药模式则更适合用于调配工作量较小或药品使用种类较分散的医院。
[Abstract]:Aim: to compare the application effect of two drug discharge modes in central intravenous drug dispensing center (PIVAS) and promote the development of PIVAS. Methods: the data related to the deployment of PIVAS in the central hospital (using the traditional drug discharge model, the control group) and the eastern hospital (using the centralized discharge model, observation group) were retrospectively analyzed in the 92 days of the third quarter of 2015. This paper introduces the supporting management measures to implement the centralized drug discharge mode, and compares the average discharge time, the average check time, the average preparation time, the average total allocation time, the amount of drug breakage, the amount of empty needle used, the number of work errors, etc. Results: the former six indexes of the control group and the observation group were 1.50.7 hu 1.81.1 h, 4.43.4h 7.1hm 5.9 h ~ (5.9) ~ 4.92.8 (P0.05), 576348 (P0.05), respectively, and the number of work errors in the two groups was 0.58 ~ 0.60 times (P0.05). Conclusion: the centralized discharge mode can shorten the working time, reduce the working intensity, reduce the amount of drug breakage and the amount of empty needle, but it needs the support of high hardware and software facilities. The traditional drug discharge mode is more suitable for the hospitals where the workload is small or the use of drugs is more dispersed.
【作者单位】： 山东大学附属省立医院;
【分类号】：R95
，

本文编号：2071252