期刊文献+

16所医院单病种合理用药评价指标构建及应用 被引量:3

Construction and application of the rational drug use of single-disease index in 16 hospitals
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的通过建立单病种住院患者合理用药评价指标体系,比较不同群体用药差异,进而评估合理用药干预政策的实施效果。方法运用德尔菲法及其量化方法构建住院患者单病种合理用药指标体系。从16家医院采集冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(以下简称为冠心病)住院患者药物消耗数据,应用宽泛入排标准,并按照不同年度和患者身份分为4个小组,应用建立的合理用药评价指标体系对4个小组患者用药情况进行对比研究。结果建立合理用药指标体系:包括"合理性"、"公平性"和"有效性"3个一级指标和"药物总费用"、"主要治疗药物费用占比"等8个二级指标。5755例患者数据纳入研究,研究表明合理医疗用药目录修订前后,在"药物总费用"、"住院天数"等指标存在显著性差异,目录适用人群与非适用人群,在"住院天数"、"主要治疗药物费用"等指标的差异缩小。结论研究建立的指标体系能够评价合理医疗干预政策对单病种合理用药水平的影响。 Objective The research group tried to set up the rational drug use inpatients index system to compare the differences between different crowds so as to evaluate the influence for Medical intervention policy to the level of the rational drug use.Methods This study founds a rational drug use of single-disease index system by delphi method.Select drug treatment data which from Coronary heart disease in 16 hospitals.Divide the above data into 4 groups according to certain rules providing a comparative study of the level of the drug with this index system.Results There are three first-class indicators(rationality,fairness,efficacy)and eight second-class indicators(total drug cost,main treatment cost ratio,and so on)in the evaluation index system.Data from 5755 patients showed that there are significant differences in total drug cost and hospital day after revision of Drug Catalogue for Reasonable Military Medical Treatment.The difference in hospital days and main treatment cost is also decreased between its applicable and non-applicable people.Conclusion The index system can evaluate the influence for medical intervention policy to the level of the rational drug use of single disease.
作者 张华林 舒丽芯 ZHANG Hualin1,2 ,SHU Lixin1(1 .Seccond Military Medical University ,Shanghai 200433 ,Chinas2 .No .251 Hospital of PLA , Zhangjiakou 075400 , China)
出处 《药学实践杂志》 CAS 2018年第6期569-572,576,共5页 Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice
基金 军队合理医疗用药政策评价研究(CWS12J106)
关键词 评价指标体系 医疗保障 德尔菲法 显著性差异 主要治疗药物 evaluation index system medical security Delphi method significant differences primary medicine
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献18

  • 1[1]World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, WHO ,June 2000.
  • 2[2]Murray CJL, et al. A WHO framework for health system performance assessment. GPE Discussion Paper No. 6. Geneva,WHO, 1999.
  • 3[3]Kakwani N. C., Measurement of tax progressivity: an international comparison. Economic Journal, 1977; 87 : 71-80
  • 4[4]Van Doorslaer E,et al. The Redistributive effect of health care finance in twelve OECD countries, Journal of Health Economics, 1999; 18 :291-313.
  • 5[5]Wagstaff A,et al. Progressivity,horizontal equity and reranking in health care finance: a decomposition analysis for the Netherlands. Journal of Health Economics, 1997; 16: 499-516.
  • 6[6]Gakidou E, et al. Measuring Preferences On Health System Performance Assessment. GPE Discussion Paper No. 20.Geneva, WHO, 1999.
  • 7[7]Gakidou E, et al. An Individual-Level Approach TO Health Inequality: Child Survival In 50 Countries. GPE Discussion Paper No. 18. Geneva,WHO,2000.
  • 8[8]Van Doorslaer E,et al. Income-related inequalities in health: some international comparisons. J Health Econ 1997; 16 (1):93-112.
  • 9[9]Wagstaff A. Socioeconomic inequalities in child mortality:comparisons across nine developing countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2000; 78 (1): 19-29.
  • 10[10]Marmot MG, et al. Health inequalities among British civil servants : the Whitehall I study. Lancet 1991;337(8754):1387-93.

共引文献6

同被引文献30

引证文献3

二级引证文献3

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部