Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. METHOD: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. RESULTS: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. CONCLUSIONS: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.

Objetivo: Analizar las intervenciones farmacéuticas realizadas con el apoyo de un sistema automático de validación de tratamientos vs. el método tradicional sin apoyo informático. Metodos: El programa automatizado, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS ® version 0, cuenta con 925.052 celdas con información de aproximadamente 20.000 medicamentos, analizando dosis, vías de administración, días de tratamiento, dosificación en insuficiencia renal y hepática, control de interacciones, de medicamentos semejantes y de medicamentos por vía enteral. Durante ocho días distribuidos en cuatro hospitales diferentes (alta complejidad con más de 1.000 camas, intermedio de 400 camas, geriátrico y monográfico), los mismos pacientes y tratamientos se analizaron mediante los dos sistemas. Resultados: Se han analizado 3.490 pacientes diferentes con 42.155 tratamientos. Por el sistema tradicional se han realizado 238 intervenciones (0,56% intervenciones/posibles intervenciones) vs. 580 (1,38%) con el automatizado. Las intervenciones farmacéuticas muy significativas fueron 0,14 vs. 0,46%, las significativas 0,38 vs. 0,90%, las no significativas 0,05 vs. 0,01%. Las intervenciones fueron del 1,85% al utilizar los dos sistemas vs. 0.56% usando solo el sistema tradicional. El sistema tradicional detectó el 30,5% de las posibles intervenciones, sin embargo con el sistema automático se detectaron el 84% de dichas intervenciones. Conclusiones: La automatización multiplica entre 2,43 a 3,64 veces las intervenciones farmacéuticas. En base a los resultados de este estudio el sistema tradicional de validación debería ser modificado, apoyándose en sistemas automatizados. El programa automático funciona en diferentes hospitales.

[Catheter management in parenteral nutrition]. / Estudio sobre manejo de catéteres en nutrición parenteral.

Following the appearance of Staphylococcus epidermidis positive hemocultures in four patients undergoing parenteral nutrition in different services, and after microbiological controls of the mixtures prepared by the Pharmacy Service in order to discard contamination during preparation, it was decided to assess the handling o catheters and central pathways by the Hospital Nursing Staff. A survey was carried out of 34 nurses, 17 each from the morning and evening shifts, from the floors with patients undergoing parenteral nutrition, representing 13.3% of all the nurses of those floors. There were five sections in the survey, with fifty-two questions referring to the introduction of catheters, change of dressing, care of the point of insertion, uses of the administrative pathway, change and handling of the parenteral nutrition bag, intravenous administration of medicines and parenteral nutrition, and withdrawal of the catheter. According to the results, 76% of central catheters are introduced in the operating theatre: once in place, the catheter is checked by X-ray to ensure that it is in the correct position, in all cases. There were major differences in the changing of dressings. The pathway for administration of the parenteral nutrition is used for a variety of functions. Medicines are administered in "Y" with the nutrient mixture, although their stability is not known. In changing the parenteral nutrition bag and the handling of the catheter, adequate sterilization measures were not taken.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[Epidemiology of parenteral nutrition during 5 years of follow-up by a nutrition team]. / Epidemiología de la nutrición parenteral a lo largo de cinco años de seguimiento por parte de un equipo de nutrición.

The purpose of this retrospective study is to ascertain the physiopathological characteristics of patients on parenteral nutrition (PN), the types of diet used and duration of treatment. Presentation of epidemiological results and evolution of 637 adults receiving PN after a five-year period of nutritional follow-up, conducted by a Nutrition Team (NT) in hospital. For the purpose of this study, we used the Follow-Up charts of all the patients treated with PN from 1986-1990. The results obtained lead us to affirm that most patients suffered a malignant gastrointestinal process, that the duration of the PN was reduced significantly during the five-year term, mainly using dietary protocols, and that there was a gradual increase in preparations of nutrient units subjected to controls compared to the total prepared by the Pharmacy Department.