| 许瑞家,董卫华,姜媛媛,等.抽吸泵在静脉用药调配中心输液调配中的应用效果[J].安徽医药,2022,26(9):1767-1770. |
| 抽吸泵在静脉用药调配中心输液调配中的应用效果 |
| Analysis of application effect of suction pump in PIVAS infusion configuration |
| |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2022.09.016 |
| 中文关键词: 给药系统，医院 抽吸泵 静脉用药调配中心 输液调配 应用效果 |
| 英文关键词: Medication systems, hospital Suction pump PIVAS Infusion configuration Application effect |
| 基金项目:陕西省自然科学基础研究计划(2021JM-526)；陕西省哲学社会科学重大理论与现实问题研究项目(2021ND0225)；深圳市萨米医疗中心院内课题(SSMC-2020-B3) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 842 |
| 全文下载次数: 258 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的探讨抽吸泵在静脉用药调配中心(PIVAS)输液调配中的应用效果。方法于2020年6月1—30日在西安交通大学第一附属医院PIVAS选4种代表性的药品:异甘草酸镁(天晴甘美)注射液、痰热清注射液、10%氯化钠注射液、头孢哌酮钠舒巴坦钠(舒普深)粉针剂，各60支。分别用抽吸泵和人工调配。对比两种调配方法所用的时间、药品的残留量及成品输液微粒数等。另采用简易问卷调查的方法对该院PIVAS的240例次调配工作人员的体能情况进行调查并比较。结果与人工调配比较，采用抽吸泵调配异甘草酸镁注射液［(25.34±0.69)s 比(29.30±0.51)s］、痰热清注射液［(19.70±1.01)s 比(24.91±0.78s］、10%氯化钠注射液［(11.30±0.75)s比(16.10±0.61)s］、头孢哌酮钠舒巴坦钠粉针剂［(19.00±0.95)s比(33.13±1.06)s］这4种药品节约了时间(P<0.05)。4种药品采用两种调配方法成品输液微粒数均差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)，且均符合药典的规定。4种药品采用两种调配方法药液的残留量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。工作人员采用抽吸泵调配时肘部乏力［8.33(20/240)比87.50%(210/240)］、腕部酸疼［12.08(29/240)比84.17%(202/240)］、腰部不适［19.58(47/240)比76.67%(184/240)］、颈肩不适［17.08(41/240)比75.83%(182/240)］等体能情况例次占比均低于人工调配(P<0.05)。结论抽吸泵在PIVAS的应用可以节约时间及人力，输液微粒的含量符合药典的规定，药液的残留与人工调配无差异。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To investigate the application effect of suction pumps in intravenous drug dispensing centers (PIVAS).Meth1ods Four representative drugs in PIVAS of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from June 1 to 30, 2020 were selected:Tianqing Ganmei injection, Tanreqing injection, 10% sodium chloride injection, and cefoperazone sodium sulbactam powder injection,60 pieces each. The four drugs were configured using suction pumps and manual methods, respectively. The time spent, the amount of drug residues, and the number of particles in the finished product were compared between the two configuration methods. A simple questionnaire survey was used to investigate and compare the physical fitness of 240 PIVAS deployment staff in the hospital.Re1sults Compared with manual preparation, Tianqing Ganmei injection [(25.34±0.69)s vs. (29.30±0.51)s], Tanreqing injection [(19.70±1.01)s vs. (24.91±0.78s]), 10% sodium chloride injection [(11.30±0.75)s vs. (16.10±0.61)s], cefoperazone sodium sulbactam powder injection[(19.00±0.95)s vs. (33.13±1.06)s] these four kinds of medicines were prepared by suction pump saved time (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of particles in the finished product infusion for the four drugs using the two preparation methods(P>0.05), and they all met the requirements of the pharmacopoeia. There was no significant difference in the residual amount of the liquid medicines of the four medicines using the two preparation methods (P>0.05). The proportion of physical condition including elbow fatigue [8.33 (20/240) vs. 87.50% (210/240)], wrist pain [12.08 (29/240) vs. 84.17% (12.08 (29/240) vs. 202/240)], waist discomfort [19.58 (47/240) vs. 76.67% (184/240)], neck and shoulder discomfort [17.08 (41/240) vs. 75.83% (182/240)] of staff with suction pump allocation was lower than that of manual allocation (P<0.05).Conclusions The application of the suction pump in PIVAS can save time and manpower. The content of infusion particles meets the requirements of the Pharmacopoeia. There is no significant difference between the residue of the drug solution and the residue of the syringe configuration. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
