SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.40 número3Criterios de Beers versus STOPP en pacientes mayores, polimedicados y residentes en la comunidadTratamiento hipoglucemiante del paciente diabético en el Servicio de Urgencias índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google

Compartilhar


Farmacia Hospitalaria

versão On-line ISSN 2171-8695versão impressa ISSN 1130-6343

Resumo

GARCIA MARCO, D. et al. Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients. Farm Hosp. [online]. 2016, vol.40, n.3, pp.165-171. ISSN 2171-8695.  https://dx.doi.org/10.7399/fh.2016.40.3.9960.

Objective: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. Method: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. Results: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. Conclusions: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.

Palavras-chave : Automation; Medication review; Decision support; Drug prescriptions; Medications errors; Clinical alarms.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Inglês     · Inglês ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons