查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- Efficacy of Pharmaceutical Care in Hemodialysis Patients--A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial
- 藥師介入居家護理成效初探
- 血液透析病人藥物相關問題分析
- 臨床藥事照護應用工具--PCNE藥物相關問題分類系統介紹
- 運用門診雲端藥歷進行藥事照護與藥物相關問題探討
- 應用PCNE-DRPs分類系統提升藥事照護
- The Significance of Syphilis Serology Tests on Long-Term Hemodialysis Patients
- Watermelon Stomach--An Unusual Cause of Recurrent Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in a Uremic Patient Receiving Estrogen-Progesterone Therapy: Case Report
- Serum Transferrin Receptor Concentration is Not Indicative of Erythropoietic Activity in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients with Poor Response to Recombinant Human Erythropoietin
- 血液透析患者飲食習慣之調查
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Efficacy of Pharmaceutical Care in Hemodialysis Patients--A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial |
---|---|
作 者 | 陳弘益; 唐正乾; 王悅琪; 蔡佩瑜; 黃麗雪; | 書刊名 | 藥學雜誌 |
卷 期 | 30:2=119 2014.06[民103.06] |
頁 次 | 頁131-137 |
分類號 | 418.1 |
關鍵詞 | 藥事照護; 血液透析; 藥物相關問題; Efficacy; Ambulatory hemodialysis; Pharmaceutical care; Medication-related problems; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 背景/目的:台灣末期腎病 (ESRD) 發病率曾在2002至2005年排名世界第一,而罹病率在世界上排名第二。血液透析 (HD) 病人往往有5-6種慢性病,需要12種藥物治療。血液透析病人使用了大量的藥物,這些藥物相關的問題的風險便增加。我們的目標是分析藥師照護對門診血液透析患者藥物相關問題分數降低的效果。 方法:這項研究是一項雙盲,隨機對照試驗。我們邀請血液透析病人加入研究,評估後,實驗組藥師介入做藥事照護,藉以解決藥物相關問題。在對照組,藥師不介入。兩個星期後,記錄每個病人藥物相關問題分數。 結果:藥師介入實驗組後,二次訪視藥物相關問題得分為0.79 ± 0.32,但對照組二次訪視得分高達2.13 ± 0.49 (平均值 ±SEM) (P < 0.05)。藥物相關問題盛行率在藥師第一次訪視,實驗組68.4%,藥師第二次訪視盛行率降至36.8%,對照組的藥物相關問題盛行率在藥師第一次訪視為73.9%,藥師第二次訪視時,盛行率保持在65.2%。 結論:臨床藥師介入可降低血液透析病人藥物相關問題分數,降低藥物相關問題盛行率,藥師對門診血液透析病人藥物相關問題之解決有正面的影響。 |
英文摘要 | Background/Aim: ESRD incidence in Taiwan ranked first and prevalence ranked second in the world from 2002 to 2005. Hemodialysis (HD) patients often require 12 medications to treat 5 to 6 comorbid conditions. HD patients use a large number of medications, which increases the risk for medication-related problems (MRPs). Thus, HD patients may be at particular risk for MRPs. Our aim is to analyze the efficacy of pharmaceutical care in MRPs in ambulatory hemodialysis patients. Methods: This study is performed as a double-blind, randomized, active controlled trial. We invite and communicate with HD patients. After pharmaceutical evaluation, pharmacist do interventions to resolve MRPs in experimental group. In control group, pharmacists don't do pharmaceutical interventions. We follow each patient in two weeks and record the MRPs score. Results: In pharmaceutical care group, at 2nd pharmaceutical visit semi-quantitative MRPs score was 0.79 ± 0.32 (Mean ± standard error of mean, S.E.M.). In control group, at 2nd pharmaceutical visit semi-quantitative MRPs score was 2.13 ± 0.49 (Mean ± S.E.M.)(P < 0.05). MRPs rate at 1st visit was 68.4% in pharmaceutical care group. After pharmaceutical care, MRPs rate at 2nd visit was 36.8% in pharmaceutical care group. In the other hand, MRPs rate at 1st visit was 73.9% in control group. Without pharmaceutical care, MRPs rate at 2nd visit remained at 65.2% in control group. Pharmaceutical care reduces MRPs rate in pharmaceutical care group. Conclusion: Pharmacists solved MRPs significantly in pharmaceutical care group. Clinical pharmacists can reduce MRPs score and MRPs rate in ambulatory HD patients and provided positive effect in caring these patients. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。