Comparative analysis of the rationality of emergency medication in West China Hospital of Sichuan University within one month after Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake_West China Medical Journal

Authors：

HU Qiaozhi ^1,2 , ZHAN Mei ¹ , JIN Zhaohui ¹ ,  XU Ting ¹ , WANG Miye ³

1. Department of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;
2. West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;
3. Information Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

XU Ting, Email: tingx2009@163.com

Keywords：

Wenchuan earthquake; Lushan Earthquake; West China Hospital of Sichuan University; Emergency medicine; Rational medication

DOI：

10.7507/1002-0179.201604089

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To comparatively analyze the rationality of emergency medication after Wenchuan earthquake with that after Lushan earthquake in West China Hospital of Sichuan University, based on the use of medicine of the victim’s disease spectrum. Method By using Excel, defined daily dose system (DDDs) and drug utilization index (DUI) were used as the evaluation indexes to analyze the rationality of emergency medication in West China Hospital of Sichuan University within one month after Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake. Results Within one month after Wenchuan and Lushan earthquake, there were 1 839 and 488 victims treated in the hospital, respectively. Within one month after the two earthquakes, the variation tendency of DDDs of drugs and number of victims was consistent, and the consistency was better in Lushan earthquake than that in Wenchuan earthquake. Among the 60 drugs which DDDs were ranked top five in their pharmacological class (top ten for antimicrobials) in Wenchuan earthquake, the majority of them were injections (injections vs. non-injections: 70.0% vs. 30.0%); the results showed that the medication (DUI=1) only accounted for 10.0%, the medication (DUI<1) accounted for 28.3%, which implied that the use of drugs was insufficient, the medication (DUI>1) accounted for 61.7%, which implied that drugs were overused; the average of DUI was 1.61. And in Lushan earthquake, injections also accounted for a larger proportion than non-injections (63.3%vs. 36.7%); the results showed that the medication (DUI=1) accounted for 15.0%, the medication (DUI<1) accounted for 38.3%, the medication (DUI>1) accounted for 46.7%; the average of DUI was 1.30. Conclusions Base on the DUI, we draw the conclusion that the rationality of emergency drug use and the timeliness of emergency drug supply were better in Lushan earthquake than those in Wenchuan earthquake. But the rationality of using the DUI, which is an evaluation index for normal conditions, to evaluate the emergency conditions still needs to be further verified.

Citation： HU Qiaozhi, ZHAN Mei, JIN Zhaohui, XU Ting, WANG Miye. Comparative analysis of the rationality of emergency medication in West China Hospital of Sichuan University within one month after Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake. West China Medical Journal, 2017, 32(11): 1753-1759. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.201604089 Copy

1.	Li Y, Wen J, Du L, et al. A comparative study on earthquake-related literature published in medical journals. J Evid Based Med, 2009, 2(4): 252-257.
2.	曲梓鐫. 四川歷史上的地震帶. 文史雜志, 2008(4): 106-108.
3.	殷志強, 趙無忌, 褚宏亮, 等. " 4·20”蘆山地震誘發地質災害基本特征及與" 5·12”汶川地震對比分析. 地質學報, 2014, 88(6): 1145-1156.
4.	World Health Organization. Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment (2013). (2012-12-17)[2016-01-15]. https:// www.whocc.no/filearchive/publications/1_2013guidelines.pdf.
5.	董景五. 疾病和有關健康問題的國際統計分類第十次修訂本 (ICD10). 2 版. 北京: 人民衛生出版社, 2008.
6.	金朝輝, 徐珽, 李幼平, 等. 蘆山地震后 1 月內四川大學華西醫院應急藥品使用合理性研究. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(9): 1025-1031.
7.	殷志強, 趙無忌, 褚宏亮, 等. " 4·20”蘆山地震誘發地質災害基本特征及與" 5·12”汶川地震對比分析. 地質學報, 2014(6): 179-190.
8.	陳竺, 沈驥, 康均行, 等. 特大地震應急醫學救援: 來自汶川的經驗. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(4): 383-392.
9.	姜潔, 李幼平, 程永忠, 等. 蘆山地震震后 2 周應急醫學救援時效與績效評估. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(5): 501-506.
10.	姜潔, 李幼平, 李鴻浩, 等. 蘆山地震后 1 月應急醫學救援的績效評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(6): 624-630.
11.	陳竺. 溫故而知新——汶川地震醫療救援的教訓與思考. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2009, 9(11): 1142.
12.	沈驥, 蘇林, 李冰, 等. 汶川地震四川省衛生應急救援成效分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2009, 9(3): 301-306.
13.	徐彭杰, 徐朝霞, 祝枝禮, 等. 克林霉素磷酸酯作為急診外傷感染預防性用藥的探討. 西南軍醫, 2010, 12(3): 497-498.
14.	王鷗. 合理使用克林霉素預防開放性骨折感染 83 例療效觀察. 首都醫藥, 2004(13): 49.
15.	ASHP therapeutic guidelines on stress ulcer prophylaxis. ASHP commission on therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 1999, 56(4): 347-379.
16.	滕文濤, 譚現花. 低分子肝素與肝素鈉的臨床應用比較. 醫藥導報, 2007, 26(1): 80-83.
17.	Checchini M, Magni M, Scaglione M, et al. Controlled clinical study of doxophylline versus aminophylline in the treatment of acute cardiorespiratory insufficiency syndromes. Minerva Cardioangiol, 1997, 45(4): 185-190.
18.	中華醫學會外科分會, 中華外科雜志編輯委員會. 圍手術期預防應用抗菌藥物指南. 中華外科雜志, 2006, 44(23): 1594-1596.
19.	國家衛生計生委辦公廳. 抗菌藥物臨床應用指導原則. 中國臨床藥學雜志, 2005, 14(4): J13-J18.
20.	Angeletti C, Guetti C, Papola R, et al. Pain after earthquake. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2012, 20(1): 419-419.

1. Li Y, Wen J, Du L, et al. A comparative study on earthquake-related literature published in medical journals. J Evid Based Med, 2009, 2(4): 252-257.
2. 曲梓鐫. 四川歷史上的地震帶. 文史雜志, 2008(4): 106-108.
3. 殷志強, 趙無忌, 褚宏亮, 等. " 4·20”蘆山地震誘發地質災害基本特征及與" 5·12”汶川地震對比分析. 地質學報, 2014, 88(6): 1145-1156.
4. World Health Organization. Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment (2013). (2012-12-17)[2016-01-15]. https:// www.whocc.no/filearchive/publications/1_2013guidelines.pdf.
5. 董景五. 疾病和有關健康問題的國際統計分類第十次修訂本 (ICD10). 2 版. 北京: 人民衛生出版社, 2008.
6. 金朝輝, 徐珽, 李幼平, 等. 蘆山地震后 1 月內四川大學華西醫院應急藥品使用合理性研究. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(9): 1025-1031.
7. 殷志強, 趙無忌, 褚宏亮, 等. " 4·20”蘆山地震誘發地質災害基本特征及與" 5·12”汶川地震對比分析. 地質學報, 2014(6): 179-190.
8. 陳竺, 沈驥, 康均行, 等. 特大地震應急醫學救援: 來自汶川的經驗. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(4): 383-392.
9. 姜潔, 李幼平, 程永忠, 等. 蘆山地震震后 2 周應急醫學救援時效與績效評估. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(5): 501-506.
10. 姜潔, 李幼平, 李鴻浩, 等. 蘆山地震后 1 月應急醫學救援的績效評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(6): 624-630.
11. 陳竺. 溫故而知新——汶川地震醫療救援的教訓與思考. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2009, 9(11): 1142.
12. 沈驥, 蘇林, 李冰, 等. 汶川地震四川省衛生應急救援成效分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2009, 9(3): 301-306.
13. 徐彭杰, 徐朝霞, 祝枝禮, 等. 克林霉素磷酸酯作為急診外傷感染預防性用藥的探討. 西南軍醫, 2010, 12(3): 497-498.
14. 王鷗. 合理使用克林霉素預防開放性骨折感染 83 例療效觀察. 首都醫藥, 2004(13): 49.
15. ASHP therapeutic guidelines on stress ulcer prophylaxis. ASHP commission on therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 1999, 56(4): 347-379.
16. 滕文濤, 譚現花. 低分子肝素與肝素鈉的臨床應用比較. 醫藥導報, 2007, 26(1): 80-83.
17. Checchini M, Magni M, Scaglione M, et al. Controlled clinical study of doxophylline versus aminophylline in the treatment of acute cardiorespiratory insufficiency syndromes. Minerva Cardioangiol, 1997, 45(4): 185-190.
18. 中華醫學會外科分會, 中華外科雜志編輯委員會. 圍手術期預防應用抗菌藥物指南. 中華外科雜志, 2006, 44(23): 1594-1596.
19. 國家衛生計生委辦公廳. 抗菌藥物臨床應用指導原則. 中國臨床藥學雜志, 2005, 14(4): J13-J18.
20. Angeletti C, Guetti C, Papola R, et al. Pain after earthquake. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2012, 20(1): 419-419.

West China Medical Journal

Comparative analysis of the rationality of emergency medication in West China Hospital of Sichuan University within one month after Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content