DRGs支付下临床药师基于呼吸系统感染临床路径的合理用药干预成本效果分析

Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinical pharmacists' interventions to rational drug use based on clinical pathways for respiratory system infections under background of DRGs payment

  • 摘要: 目的 探索疾病诊断相关分组(DRGs)和临床路径相结合的药师服务模式,对选定入组临床路径的呼吸系统感染患者临床用药成效变化及成本效果分析。方法 选取2022年2月-2024年4月玉溪市人民医院入组呼吸系统感染疾病患者,其中2022年3月-2023年2月为对照组,2023年3月-2024年2月为干预组,根据入组不同病种,将纳入患者分为DRGs ES35、ES33、ES31三组,分析临床药师在给药前审核(处方前置审核)、给药中监督(临床药师查房、会诊、用药教育、药物重整及用药监护)、给药后评估(处方点评、专项药物点评、临床路径合理用药分析)全流程闭环式合理用药干预管理后三组患者临床用药方案的成本和疗效的变化。结果 与对照组相比,3个DRGs干预组的住院天数、住院费用显著降低(P<0.05); 3个DRGs干预组的用药合理率和ES31组临床有效率增加(P<0.05)。与对照组相比,ES35干预组的费用消耗指数由0.72下降至0.54、ES35组由0.54下降至0.49、ES31组由0.55下降至0.38; ES35干预组的时间消耗指数由1.12下降至1.01、ES33组由0.85下降至0.84、ES31组由0.73下降至0.63。针对ES35临床路径组患者,分析不同抗感染药物治疗方案的经济性,表明C组(阿奇霉素组)成本效果比(CER)为3 002.46为绝对优势方案,其余依次是D组(头孢呋辛组)、A组(左氧氟沙星组)、B组(莫西沙星组),CER依次是3 608.59、3 837.70、4 237.43。结论 DRGs支付改革背景下临床药师干预临床路径合理用药的药学服务新模式,显著降低呼吸系统感染住院患者住院成本,同时提高了住院患者用药合理性和临床有效率。

     

    Abstract: OBJECTIVE To explore the pharmacist service mode combining diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) combined with clinical pathways and observe the change of clinical therapeutic effect and cost effectiveness for the designated patients with respiratory tract infections of the clinical pathways. METHODS The patients with respiratory infectious diseases who were treated in Yuxi People's Hospital from Feb. 2022 to Apr. 2024 were enrolled in the study, and the patients who were treated from Mar. 2022 to Feb. 2023 were assigned as the control group, and the patients who were treated from Mar. 2023 to Feb. 2024 were assigned as the intervention group, and the patients were divided into the DRGsES35 group, the ES33 group and the ES31 group according to the type of disease. The changes of costs and effects of clinical medical regimens were observed and compared among the three groups of patients after the full-process closed-loop intervention management of rational drug use including the review before drug administration (review before prescription), supervision during drug administration (clinical pharmacists' ward rounds, consultation, medication education, drug adjustment and medication monitoring) and assessment after drug administration (comments on prescription, comments on specialized drugs, analysis of rational drug use of clinical pathways). RESULTS The length of hospital stay and hospitalization costs were remarkably less in the 3 DRGs intervention groups than in the control group(P<0.05); the rate of rational drug use was increased in the 3 DRGs intervention group, and the clinical effective rate of the ES31 group was increased(P<0.05). As compared with the control group, the cost consumption index of the ES35 intervention group was decreased from 0.72 to 0.54, the ES35 group decreasing from 0.54 to 0.49, the ES31 group decreasing from 0.55 to 0.38. The time consumption index of the ES35 intervention group was decreased from 1.12 to 1.01, with the ES33 group decreasing from 0.85 to 0.84, the ES31 group deceasing from 0.73 to 0.63. As for the patients of the ES35 clinical pathway group, the analysis of economical efficiency of the different anti-infection drug therapies indicated that the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of the group C (the azithromycin group) was 3002.46, it was the absolute predominant regimen; the CERs of the group D (the cefuroxime group), the group A (the levofloxacin group) and the group B (the moxifloxacin group) were 3608.59, 3837.70 and 4237.43, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The novel pharmaceutical service mode of clinical pharmacists' interventions to rational drug use based on clinical pathways under the background of DRGs payment has remarkably reduce the hospitalization cost of the hospitalized patients with respiratory system infections and raise the rationality of drug administration and the clinical effective rate.

     

/

返回文章
返回