目的:比较北京市医改后海淀区与朝阳区社区卫生服务中心处方点评的结果, 为医改后提高北京市社区卫生服务中心处方质量和合理用药水平提供参考.方法:随机抽取2017年4月医改后海淀区社区卫生服务中心门诊处方10 510张、朝阳区社区卫生服务中心门诊处方10 476张, 按照处方点评标准对其进行点评, 并对用药情况进行对比分析.结果:海淀区和朝阳区社区卫生服务中心处方平均金额约为160元, 两区之间的差异无统计学意义 (P＞0.05);海淀区处方中国家基本药物使用率、补充基本药物使用率明显高于朝阳区, 差异均有统计学意义 (P＜0.05);海淀区处方不合理率明显高于朝阳区, 差异有统计学意义 (P＜0.05).结论:通过医改后海淀区与朝阳区社区卫生服务中心处方点评结果的对比, 发现两区处方点评标准的差异较大, 下一步应进一步加强药师的干预, 并且完善处方点评的标准, 确保患者用药安全.%ABSRACT OBJECTIVE: To compared the results of prescription review in community healthcare centers in Haidian district and Chaoyang district after Beijing medical reform, so as to provide references for promoting quality of prescription and rational drug application in community healthcare centers in Beijing. METHODS: 10 510 outpatient prescriptions in community healthcare centers of Haidian district and 10 476 outpatient prescriptions in community healthcare centers of Chaoyang district in Apr. 2017 were randomly extracted to be reviewed according to the prescription review standard and analyzed in terms of drug application. RESULTS: The average prescription amount of Haidian district and Chaoyang district was about 160 yuan, the difference between the two districts had no statistical significance (P＞0.05); the application rates of national essential drugs and supplementary essential drugs in Haidian district were significantly higher than those of Chaoyang district, with statistically significant differences (P＜0.05); the irrational rate of prescriptions in Haidian district was significantly higher than that of Chaoyang district, with statistically significant differences (P＜0.05). CONCLUSIONS: After comparing the results of prescription review between community healthcare centers in Haidian district and Chaoyang district after medical reform, it is found that the difference of prescription review standards between the two districts is large, the intervention of pharmacists should be further strengthened, and the standards of prescription review needs to be improved to ensure the safety of drug application.
展开▼
