Comparative analysis of the rationality of emergency medication in West China Hospital of Sichuan University within one month after Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake_West China Medical Journal

Authors：

HU Qiaozhi ^1,2 , ZHAN Mei ¹ , JIN Zhaohui ¹ ,  XU Ting ¹ , WANG Miye ³

1. Department of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;
2. West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;
3. Information Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

XU Ting, Email: tingx2009@163.com

Keywords：

Wenchuan earthquake; Lushan Earthquake; West China Hospital of Sichuan University; Emergency medicine; Rational medication

DOI：

10.7507/1002-0179.201604089

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To comparatively analyze the rationality of emergency medication after Wenchuan earthquake with that after Lushan earthquake in West China Hospital of Sichuan University, based on the use of medicine of the victim’s disease spectrum. Method By using Excel, defined daily dose system (DDDs) and drug utilization index (DUI) were used as the evaluation indexes to analyze the rationality of emergency medication in West China Hospital of Sichuan University within one month after Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake. Results Within one month after Wenchuan and Lushan earthquake, there were 1 839 and 488 victims treated in the hospital, respectively. Within one month after the two earthquakes, the variation tendency of DDDs of drugs and number of victims was consistent, and the consistency was better in Lushan earthquake than that in Wenchuan earthquake. Among the 60 drugs which DDDs were ranked top five in their pharmacological class (top ten for antimicrobials) in Wenchuan earthquake, the majority of them were injections (injections vs. non-injections: 70.0% vs. 30.0%); the results showed that the medication (DUI=1) only accounted for 10.0%, the medication (DUI<1) accounted for 28.3%, which implied that the use of drugs was insufficient, the medication (DUI>1) accounted for 61.7%, which implied that drugs were overused; the average of DUI was 1.61. And in Lushan earthquake, injections also accounted for a larger proportion than non-injections (63.3%vs. 36.7%); the results showed that the medication (DUI=1) accounted for 15.0%, the medication (DUI<1) accounted for 38.3%, the medication (DUI>1) accounted for 46.7%; the average of DUI was 1.30. Conclusions Base on the DUI, we draw the conclusion that the rationality of emergency drug use and the timeliness of emergency drug supply were better in Lushan earthquake than those in Wenchuan earthquake. But the rationality of using the DUI, which is an evaluation index for normal conditions, to evaluate the emergency conditions still needs to be further verified.

Citation： HU Qiaozhi, ZHAN Mei, JIN Zhaohui, XU Ting, WANG Miye. Comparative analysis of the rationality of emergency medication in West China Hospital of Sichuan University within one month after Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake. West China Medical Journal, 2017, 32(11): 1753-1759. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.201604089 Copy

1.	Li Y, Wen J, Du L, et al. A comparative study on earthquake-related literature published in medical journals. J Evid Based Med, 2009, 2(4): 252-257.
2.	曲梓镌. 四川历史上的地震带. 文史杂志, 2008(4): 106-108.
3.	殷志强, 赵无忌, 褚宏亮, 等. " 4·20”芦山地震诱发地质灾害基本特征及与" 5·12”汶川地震对比分析. 地质学报, 2014, 88(6): 1145-1156.
4.	World Health Organization. Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment (2013). (2012-12-17)[2016-01-15]. https:// www.whocc.no/filearchive/publications/1_2013guidelines.pdf.
5.	董景五. 疾病和有关健康问题的国际统计分类第十次修订本 (ICD10). 2 版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2008.
6.	金朝辉, 徐珽, 李幼平, 等. 芦山地震后 1 月内四川大学华西医院应急药品使用合理性研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(9): 1025-1031.
7.	殷志强, 赵无忌, 褚宏亮, 等. " 4·20”芦山地震诱发地质灾害基本特征及与" 5·12”汶川地震对比分析. 地质学报, 2014(6): 179-190.
8.	陈竺, 沈骥, 康均行, 等. 特大地震应急医学救援: 来自汶川的经验. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(4): 383-392.
9.	姜洁, 李幼平, 程永忠, 等. 芦山地震震后 2 周应急医学救援时效与绩效评估. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(5): 501-506.
10.	姜洁, 李幼平, 李鸿浩, 等. 芦山地震后 1 月应急医学救援的绩效评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(6): 624-630.
11.	陈竺. 温故而知新——汶川地震医疗救援的教训与思考. 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(11): 1142.
12.	沈骥, 苏林, 李冰, 等. 汶川地震四川省卫生应急救援成效分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(3): 301-306.
13.	徐彭杰, 徐朝霞, 祝枝礼, 等. 克林霉素磷酸酯作为急诊外伤感染预防性用药的探讨. 西南军医, 2010, 12(3): 497-498.
14.	王鸥. 合理使用克林霉素预防开放性骨折感染 83 例疗效观察. 首都医药, 2004(13): 49.
15.	ASHP therapeutic guidelines on stress ulcer prophylaxis. ASHP commission on therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 1999, 56(4): 347-379.
16.	滕文涛, 谭现花. 低分子肝素与肝素钠的临床应用比较. 医药导报, 2007, 26(1): 80-83.
17.	Checchini M, Magni M, Scaglione M, et al. Controlled clinical study of doxophylline versus aminophylline in the treatment of acute cardiorespiratory insufficiency syndromes. Minerva Cardioangiol, 1997, 45(4): 185-190.
18.	中华医学会外科分会, 中华外科杂志编辑委员会. 围手术期预防应用抗菌药物指南. 中华外科杂志, 2006, 44(23): 1594-1596.
19.	国家卫生计生委办公厅. 抗菌药物临床应用指导原则. 中国临床药学杂志, 2005, 14(4): J13-J18.
20.	Angeletti C, Guetti C, Papola R, et al. Pain after earthquake. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2012, 20(1): 419-419.

1. Li Y, Wen J, Du L, et al. A comparative study on earthquake-related literature published in medical journals. J Evid Based Med, 2009, 2(4): 252-257.
2. 曲梓镌. 四川历史上的地震带. 文史杂志, 2008(4): 106-108.
3. 殷志强, 赵无忌, 褚宏亮, 等. " 4·20”芦山地震诱发地质灾害基本特征及与" 5·12”汶川地震对比分析. 地质学报, 2014, 88(6): 1145-1156.
4. World Health Organization. Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment (2013). (2012-12-17)[2016-01-15]. https:// www.whocc.no/filearchive/publications/1_2013guidelines.pdf.
5. 董景五. 疾病和有关健康问题的国际统计分类第十次修订本 (ICD10). 2 版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2008.
6. 金朝辉, 徐珽, 李幼平, 等. 芦山地震后 1 月内四川大学华西医院应急药品使用合理性研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(9): 1025-1031.
7. 殷志强, 赵无忌, 褚宏亮, 等. " 4·20”芦山地震诱发地质灾害基本特征及与" 5·12”汶川地震对比分析. 地质学报, 2014(6): 179-190.
8. 陈竺, 沈骥, 康均行, 等. 特大地震应急医学救援: 来自汶川的经验. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(4): 383-392.
9. 姜洁, 李幼平, 程永忠, 等. 芦山地震震后 2 周应急医学救援时效与绩效评估. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(5): 501-506.
10. 姜洁, 李幼平, 李鸿浩, 等. 芦山地震后 1 月应急医学救援的绩效评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(6): 624-630.
11. 陈竺. 温故而知新——汶川地震医疗救援的教训与思考. 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(11): 1142.
12. 沈骥, 苏林, 李冰, 等. 汶川地震四川省卫生应急救援成效分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2009, 9(3): 301-306.
13. 徐彭杰, 徐朝霞, 祝枝礼, 等. 克林霉素磷酸酯作为急诊外伤感染预防性用药的探讨. 西南军医, 2010, 12(3): 497-498.
14. 王鸥. 合理使用克林霉素预防开放性骨折感染 83 例疗效观察. 首都医药, 2004(13): 49.
15. ASHP therapeutic guidelines on stress ulcer prophylaxis. ASHP commission on therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 1999, 56(4): 347-379.
16. 滕文涛, 谭现花. 低分子肝素与肝素钠的临床应用比较. 医药导报, 2007, 26(1): 80-83.
17. Checchini M, Magni M, Scaglione M, et al. Controlled clinical study of doxophylline versus aminophylline in the treatment of acute cardiorespiratory insufficiency syndromes. Minerva Cardioangiol, 1997, 45(4): 185-190.
18. 中华医学会外科分会, 中华外科杂志编辑委员会. 围手术期预防应用抗菌药物指南. 中华外科杂志, 2006, 44(23): 1594-1596.
19. 国家卫生计生委办公厅. 抗菌药物临床应用指导原则. 中国临床药学杂志, 2005, 14(4): J13-J18.
20. Angeletti C, Guetti C, Papola R, et al. Pain after earthquake. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2012, 20(1): 419-419.

West China Medical Journal

Comparative analysis of the rationality of emergency medication in West China Hospital of Sichuan University within one month after Wenchuan earthquake and Lushan earthquake

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content