• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Australian prescriber >Intravenous paracetamol in paediatrics: cause for concern
【24h】

Intravenous paracetamol in paediatrics: cause for concern

机译：儿科静脉寄生淀粉醇：关注的原因

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Editorial Executive Committee welcomes letters, which should be less than 25C words. Before a decision to publish is made, letters which refer to a published article may be sent to the author for a response. Any letter may be sent to an expert for comment. When letters are published, they are usually accompanied in the same issue by any responses or comments. The Committee screens out discourteous, naccurate or libellous statements. The letters are sub-edited before publication Authors are required to declare any conflicts of interest. The Committee's decision on publication is final. Editor, - I disagree with the statement in the medicinal mishap (Aust Prescr 2014;37:24-5) that only one route of administration for paracetamol should be charted when treating children.It is neither inappropriate nor unsafe. It reduces the flexibility of the nurses to decide whether the intravenous or oral route is used. The child may initially require intravenous then oral dosing (much cheaper) when suitable. The doses and dosing intervals are the same for the oral and the intravenous formulations. Rectal doses are higher, but it would not be unsafe to prescribe paracetamol 'IV/PO/PR'. Certainly 'IV/O' is perfectly acceptable. It is not practical to prescribe per rectum paracetamol in doses that are not in multiples of 125 mg. Secondly, there is not enough room on the current standardised medication chart (which needs to be revised) to include the generic and the brand name (which is often not known to the prescribing doctor).
机译：编辑执行委员会欢迎信件，应少于25C字。在发布的决定之前，可以向作者发送引用已发布文章的字母进行响应。任何信件都可以发送给专家进行评论。当字母出版时，他们通常由任何答复或评论伴随着同一问题。委员会筛选了令人沮丧的，非审查或诽谤陈述。在出版作者需要申报任何利益冲突之前，这些信件是子编辑的。委员会关于出版物的决定是最终的。编辑， - 我不同意药用事故中的陈述（Aust Prescr 2014; 37：24-5），只有在治疗儿童时只有一种寄生虫疟原虫途径。既不恰当也不是不安全。它降低了护士的灵活性来确定是否使用静脉内或口腔途径。当合适时，孩子最初可能需要静脉注射静脉注射剂（更便宜）。对口腔和静脉注射制剂的剂量和给药间隔是相同的。直肠剂量较高，但规定扑热息痛'IV / PO / PR'不会不安全。当然'IV / O'是完全可以接受的。每rectum扑热息醇以125mg的倍数规定的剂量规定，每rectum扑热息痛是不实际的。其次，目前的标准化药物图表中没有足够的空间（需要修改）包括通用和品牌名称（通常不知道的医生）。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号