Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Differential impact of on-site or telepharmacy in the intensive care unit: a controlled before-after study.
Ramos, Joao Gabriel Rosa; Hernandes, Sandra Cristina; Pereira, Talita Teles Teixeira; Oliveira, Shana; Soares, Denis de Melo; Passos, Rogerio da Hora; Caldas, Juliana Ribeiro; Guarda, Suzete Nascimento Farias; Batista, Paulo Benigno Pena; Mendes, Ana Verena Almeida.
Afiliação
  • Ramos JGR; Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Sao Rafael, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
  • Hernandes SC; Clinica Florence, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
  • Pereira TTT; D'Or Institute of Research and Education (IDOR), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, Brazil.
  • Oliveira S; Pharmacy Department, Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
  • Soares DM; D'Or Institute of Research and Education (IDOR), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, Brazil.
  • Passos RDH; Pharmacy Department, Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
  • Caldas JR; D'Or Institute of Research and Education (IDOR), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, Brazil.
  • Guarda SNF; Pharmacy Department, Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
  • Batista PBP; Pharmacy Department, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
  • Mendes AVA; Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Sao Rafael, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Int J Qual Health Care ; 33(1)2021 Feb 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33515245
BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacists have an important role in the intensive care unit (ICU) team but are scarce resources. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of on-site pharmacists on medical prescriptions in the ICU. METHODS: This is a retrospective, quasi-experimental, controlled before-after study in two ICUs. Interventions by pharmacists were evaluated in phase 1 (February to November 2016) and phase 2 (February to May 2017) in ICU A (intervention) and ICU B (control). In phase 1, both ICUs had a telepharmacy service in which medical prescriptions were evaluated and interventions were made remotely. In phase 2, an on-site pharmacist was implemented in ICU A, but not in ICU B. We compared the number of interventions that were accepted in phase 1 versus phase 2. RESULTS: During the study period, 8797/9603 (91.6%) prescriptions were evaluated, and 935 (10.6%) needed intervention. In phase 2, there was an increase in the proportion of interventions that were accepted by the physician in comparison to phase 1 (93.9% versus 76.8%, P < 0.001) in ICU A, but there was no change in ICU B (75.2% versus 73.9%, P = 0.845). CONCLUSION: An on-site pharmacist in the ICU was associated with an increase in the proportion of interventions that were accepted by physicians.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar / Médicos Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Int J Qual Health Care Assunto da revista: SERVICOS DE SAUDE Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil País de publicação: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar / Médicos Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Int J Qual Health Care Assunto da revista: SERVICOS DE SAUDE Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil País de publicação: Reino Unido