...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): A multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-eff ectiveness analysis
【24h】

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): A multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-eff ectiveness analysis

机译:以药剂师为主导的信息技术干预药物错误(PINCER):多中心,集群随机,对照试验和成本效益分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more eff ective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. Methods In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratifi ed by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based random isation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-infl ammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-eff ectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials. com, number ISRCTN21785299. Findings 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were signifi cantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0.73, 0.58-0.91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0.51, 0.34-0.78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost eff ective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. Interpretation The PINCER intervention is an eff ective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Funding Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.
机译:背景药物治疗错误在基层医疗中很常见,并且会给患者带来巨大的伤害风险。我们测试了以药剂师为主导,基于信息技术的干预是否比简单的反馈更有效,以减少干预后6个月处于危险处方和药物血液测试监测不足相关风险的患者人数。方法在英国这个实用的,成簇的随机试验一般实践中,按研究地点和列表大小进行分层,然后由基于网络的随机隔离服务以2或4至2组的一组随机分配。将实践分配给高危患者的计算机生成的简单反馈(对照)或由药剂师主导的信息技术干预措施(PINCER),由反馈,教育推广和专门支持组成。该分配掩盖了常规做法,患者,药剂师,研究人员和统计学家。主要结局是干预后6个月出现三个临床上重要错误的患者所占的比例:对有消化性溃疡病史且没有共同处方的患者开具的非选择性非甾体类抗炎药(NSAIDs)质子泵抑制剂;有哮喘病史的人服用β受体阻滞剂; 75岁或以上的人长期服用血管紧张素转换酶(ACE)抑制剂或loop利尿剂的处方,而在过去15个月中未评估尿素和电解质。通过增量成本效益分析来估计避免的每个错误的成本。该研究已在对照试验中注册。 com,编号ISRCTN21785299。结果随机选择了72个一般做法,合并了480 942名患者。随访6个月后,PINCER组患者如果有无胃保护性消化性溃疡病史(OR 0.58,95%CI 0.38-0.89),则非处方非选择性NSAID的可能性大大降低;如果患有哮喘,则使用β受体阻滞剂(0.73,0.58-0.91);或没有适当监测的ACE抑制剂或利尿剂(0.51、0.34-0.78)。如果决策者在6个月内避免的每个错误的最高支付意愿达到£ 75,则PINCER具有95%的成本效益概率。解释PINCER干预是一种有效方法,可通过计算机临床记录减少一般实践中的用药错误。英格兰卫生部资助的患者安全研究组合。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号