检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
出 处:《中国药房》2009年第34期2719-2720,共2页China Pharmacy
摘 要:目的:考察并比较用不同的处方评价方法进行处方管理时的效果。方法:每月同时以我院自订的方法(方法一)和《处方管理办法》指定的方法(方法二)进行审方(12个月共24000张),行政部门根据处方评价结果干预医师的处方行为,对比2种方法各自指标数据12个月的变化情况。结果:方法一中,除了用法用量问题数有较小斜率的上升趋势外,其他不合理问题数都有较大斜率的下降趋势;方法二中,除平均品种数有小斜率的下降趋势外,其他指标均有小斜率的上升趋势。结论:方法一的评价及干预效果较方法二明显。OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of evaluation method on management of prescription. METHODS: A total of 24 000 prescriptions of 12 months were evaluated with both method 1 devised by our hospital and method 2 specified in ordinance of Management of prescription. The administration department intervened physicians' prescription behaviors ac- cording to the evaluation results. The change of data in method 1 was compared with that in method 2. RESULTS: In method 1, the problems of usage and dosage increased a little while other irrational problems lessened largely. In method 2, the average amount of drug categories reduced a little while the other data increased a little. CONCLUSION: The effect of evaluation and intervention in method 1 are superior to those in method 2.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.3