论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较应用美国健康促进研究所推出的全面触发工具(GTT)主动监测药品不良事件(ADE)与采用自愿报告系统上报的ADE,为更好地应用两种监测方法预防和减少药品不良事件提供参考。方法:回顾性分析某院2014年应用GTT监测的成年住院患者的ADE与同期医院自愿报告的ADE的特点。结果:自愿上报ADE的可预防率为4.08%,GTT监测为18.75%。ADE相关患者中内科明显多于外科。自愿上报ADE中E级为主,且有F级、H级事件,GTT监测的ADE中E级与F级事件较多。ADE涉及的给药途径以静滴、口服和皮下给药为主,涉及的药品中频率最高的是中药、抗肿瘤药和胰岛素。结论:GTT监测与自愿上报两种方法监测到的ADE类型有一定互补性,建议医疗机构同时应用两种方法,以更好地预防和减少ADE的发生。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of the Global Triggering Tool (GTT) initiative of the Institute for Health Promotion to proactively monitor ADEs and ADEs reported using voluntary reporting systems to provide better use of both monitoring methods for the prevention and reduction of adverse drug events reference. Methods: A retrospective analysis was made on the characteristics of ADEs in adult hospitalized patients who were monitored by GTT in 2014 in a hospital and voluntary reports of ADEs in the same period. Results: The preventable rate of voluntary reporting of ADE was 4.08% and that of GTT monitoring was 18.75%. In ADE-related patients, there were significantly more internal medicine than surgery. Voluntary reporting to the ADE in the E-class-based, and F, H-level events, GTT monitoring ADE E-level and F-level events are more. ADE involved in the route of administration to intravenous, oral and subcutaneous administration of the most frequently involved drugs in traditional Chinese medicine, anti-tumor drugs and insulin. Conclusion: There is some complementarity between the two types of ADEs monitored by GTT monitoring and voluntary reporting. It is suggested that the two kinds of methods should be used simultaneously by medical institutions to prevent and reduce the incidence of ADE.