Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients / Comparación entre el método de validación farmacéutica tradicional versus validación farmacéutica asistida en pacientes hospitalizados

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(R) 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. MÉTODOS: El programa automatizado, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS(R) 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

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.

[Survey on parenteral nutrition preparation variability in pediatrics]. / Encuesta sobre la variabilidad en la elaboración de la nutrición parenteral en pediatría.

UNLABELLED: The prescription and preparation of paediatric parenteral nutrition in Spain are subject to great variability. AIM: To identify how paediatric parenteral nutrition is prescribed and prepared in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the first quarter of 2001, a telephone survey was carried out among most of the hospitals in which parenteral nutrition is habitually prepared. The survey included questions on who was in charge of the prescription, the use of different solutions, addition of supplements (carnitine, heparin and glutamine), as well as information on the shelf-life of the mixtures. Subsequently, the results of the survey were compared with the following guidance documents: "Enteral and parenteral nutrition in paediatrics", drafted under the auspices of the Spanish Association for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (2000) and the "Guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and paediatric patients"/"Nutrition support practice manual" from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (1998). RESULTS: Of the 48 hospitals surveyed, paediatric parenteral nutrition was not prepared in 12 of them. the number of food bags prepared daily correlated directly with the size of the hospital. In all cases, the paediatricians were responsible for prescription. In 87% of the centres, this prescription was customized (i.e. solutions adapted to each individual patient). All of the hospitals used dextrose as the source of carbohydrates and specific amino acid solutions for paediatric medicine. Basically, lipid emulsions with long chain triglycerides were used in 65% of cases and another 19% used physical mixtures of MCT and LCT. Only half of the hospitals routinely used all-in-one mixtures. Inorganic phosphate continued to be used in most cases (78%) versus sodium glycerol phosphate. Vitamins and trace elements were added daily in 65% of the hospitals, with alternate administration in the remainder. In half of the centres, heparin was added to the mixture and carnitine in 27%. For 40% of the centres responding to the survey, the solution had to be used within 24 hours of its preparation; 11% did not indicate the shelf-life. CONCLUSIONS: Although parenteral nutrition is prescribed by the paediatricians on all occasions, the preparation protocols differ significantly between hospitals. Standardization is exceptional. It is noteworthy that all-in-one mixtures are only used in half of the hospitals surveyed. We suggest the creation of a multidisciplinary working party (pharmacists, paediatricians, neonatologists) in order to draw up protocols for the preparation of paediatric parenteral nutrition.