Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32106497


Rational prescribing criteria have been well established in adult medicine for both research and quality improvement in the appropriate use of medicines. Paediatric rational prescribing has not been as widely investigated. The aims of this review were to identify and provide an overview of all paediatric rational prescribing tools that have been developed for use in paediatric settings. A systematic literature search was made of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and IPA from their earliest records until July 2019 for all published paediatric rational prescribing tools. The characteristics of the tools were recorded including method of development, types of criteria, aspects of rational prescribing assessed, and intended practice setting. The search identified three paediatric rational prescribing tools: the POPI (Pediatrics: Omissions of Prescriptions and Inappropriate Prescriptions) tool, the modified POPI (UK) tool, and indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc). PIPc comprises explicit criteria, whereas POPI and the modified POPI (UK) use a mixed approach. PIPc is designed for use in primary care in the UK and Ireland, POPI is designed for use in all paediatric practice settings and is based on French practice standards, and the modified POPI (UK) is based on UK practice standards and is designed for use in all paediatric practice settings. This review describes three paediatric rational prescribing tools and details their characteristics. This will provide readers with information for the use of the tools in quality improvement or research and support further work in the field of paediatric rational prescribing.

Healthcare (Basel) ; 7(1)2019 Feb 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30791668


Rational prescribing tools can be used by individual prescribers, organisations, and researchers to evaluate the quality of prescribing for research and quality improvement purposes. A literature search showed that there is only one tool for evaluating rational prescribing for paediatric patients in hospital and outpatient settings. The Pediatrics: Omission of Prescriptions and Inappropriate Prescriptions (POPI) tool was developed in France and comprises 105 criteria. The aim of this study was to modify this tool to facilitate its use in paediatric practice in the United Kingdom (UK). POPI criteria were compared to relevant UK clinical guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network and the British National Formulary for Children. Where guidelines differed, criteria were modified to reflect UK guidance. If there were no relevant guidelines or directly contradictory guidelines, criteria were removed. Overall, no change was made to 49 criteria. There were 29 modified to concord with UK guidelines. Four criteria were reduced to two criteria due to being linked in single guidelines. Twenty-three criteria were omitted, due to the absence of relevant UK guidance or directly conflicting UK practice, including one entire clinical category (mosquitos). One category title was amended to parallel UK terminology. The modified POPI (UK) tool comprises of eighty criteria and is the first rational prescribing tool for the evaluation of prescribing for children in hospital and outpatient settings in the UK.

Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol ; 9(8): 1117-27, 2016 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27171366


INTRODUCTION: Herbal medicines (HMs) have been well known to people of the European Union (EU) and Russia for centuries. Currently, Western HMs can be classified into two categories, plant-derived conventional medicines and dietary supplements. Interest to HMs has grown rapidly in all countries during the past two decades. AREAS COVERED: The main goal of this review article is to present the history of HMs in the EU and Russia, forms of modern HMs, including Oriental Medicines that are popular among consumers of both countries. Additional discussion points comprise safety and adulteration issues associated with HMs, including regulatory changes and new legislative measures undertaken by the authorities. Materials available from legislative and governmental websites, PubMed and news media were used. Expert commentary: Due to cultural diversities in the EU and Russia, traditional HMs of other regions, particularly Chinese Traditional and Ayurvedic medicines, are also popular. Recently, dietary supplements containing multiple herbal and other natural products have flooded the EU and Russian markets. Pharmacovigilance in these markets is challenging in terms of establishing quality and safety of ingredients, determining efficacy, and defining risks of herb-herb and herb-drug interactions. Both the EU and Russia have introduced new legislation aimed to overcome these deficiencies.

Fitoterapia/métodos , Preparações de Plantas/uso terapêutico , Plantas Medicinais/química , Animais , Suplementos Nutricionais/efeitos adversos , Suplementos Nutricionais/normas , União Europeia , Interações Ervas-Drogas , Humanos , Legislação de Medicamentos , Medicina Tradicional/métodos , Preparações de Plantas/efeitos adversos , Preparações de Plantas/normas , Federação Russa
Philos Ethics Humanit Med ; 8: 1, 2013 Feb 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23433035


The 2012 Varsity Medical Debate between Oxford University and Cambridge University provided a stage for representatives from these famous institutions to debate the motion "This house believes that trainee doctors should be able to use the developing world to gain clinical experience." This article brings together many of the arguments put forward during the debate, centring around three major points of contention: the potential intrinsic wrong of 'using' patients in developing countries; the effects on the elective participant; and the effects on the host community. The article goes on to critically appraise overseas elective programmes, offering a number of solutions that would help optimise their effectiveness in the developing world.

Estágio Clínico , Países em Desenvolvimento , Estágio Clínico/ética , Dissidências e Disputas , Humanos , Internato e Residência/ética , Estudantes de Medicina
Philos Ethics Humanit Med ; 6: 13, 2011 Jul 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21740573


The 2011 Varsity Medical Debate, between Oxford and Cambridge Universities, brought students and faculty together to discuss the waiving of patents for antiretroviral therapies in the developing world. With an estimated 29.5 million infected by Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in low- and middle-income countries and only 5.3 million of those being treated, the effective and equitable distribution of anti-retroviral therapy (ART) is an issue of great importance. The debate centred around three areas of contention. Firstly, there was disagreement about whether patents were the real barrier to the access of anti-retroviral therapy in the developing world. Secondly, there were differing views on the effectiveness of a patent pool. Thirdly, concerns were raised over the impact of waiving patents on research to produce new and better anti retro-viral drugs.

Antirretrovirais , Países em Desenvolvimento , Dissidências e Disputas , Política de Saúde , Patentes como Assunto/ética , Infecções por HIV/tratamento farmacológico , HIV-1 , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Propriedade Intelectual , Reino Unido