British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011
Drug selection in French university hospitals: analysis of formularies for nine competitive pharmacological classes.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gallini Adeline, Juillard-Condat Blandine, Saux Marie-Claude, Taboulet Florence
Аннотация
AIM: To give a panorama of the selectivity and agreement of French university hospitals' drug formularies (HDF) for nine competitive classes.
METHODS: All university hospitals were asked to send their HDF and selection criteria as of January 2009 for nine competitive pharmacological classes (proton pump inhibitors, serotonin antagonists, low molecular weight heparins, erythropoietins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, statins, α-adrenoreceptor antagonists and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors). Selectivity of HDF was estimated by the percentage of drug entities selected by the hospital within the pharmacological class. Agreement between hospitals was assessed with modified kappa coefficients for multi-raters.
RESULTS: Twenty-one out of the 29 hospitals agreed to participate. These hospitals selected between 34% and 63% of the drug entities available for the nine classes, which represented 18 to 35 agents. Regarding the nature of chosen drug entities, the overall level of agreement was 'fair' and varied with pharmacological classes. Selection criteria were sent by only 12 hospitals. The technical component was the most important element in all hospitals. The weight of the economic component varied between 20% and 40% in the tender's grade.
DISCUSSION: Large variations were seen in the number and nature of drugs selected by university hospitals which can be attributable to two successive decision-making processes (evaluation by the Drug and Therapeutics Committee followed by the purchasing process).
METHODS: All university hospitals were asked to send their HDF and selection criteria as of January 2009 for nine competitive pharmacological classes (proton pump inhibitors, serotonin antagonists, low molecular weight heparins, erythropoietins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, statins, α-adrenoreceptor antagonists and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors). Selectivity of HDF was estimated by the percentage of drug entities selected by the hospital within the pharmacological class. Agreement between hospitals was assessed with modified kappa coefficients for multi-raters.
RESULTS: Twenty-one out of the 29 hospitals agreed to participate. These hospitals selected between 34% and 63% of the drug entities available for the nine classes, which represented 18 to 35 agents. Regarding the nature of chosen drug entities, the overall level of agreement was 'fair' and varied with pharmacological classes. Selection criteria were sent by only 12 hospitals. The technical component was the most important element in all hospitals. The weight of the economic component varied between 20% and 40% in the tender's grade.
DISCUSSION: Large variations were seen in the number and nature of drugs selected by university hospitals which can be attributable to two successive decision-making processes (evaluation by the Drug and Therapeutics Committee followed by the purchasing process).