毒品鉴定:中毒控制中心的调查。

Jeanie E Jaramillo, H Glenn Anderson, J Paul Jaramillo, Mary Lou Nester, Shu Shum
{"title":"毒品鉴定:中毒控制中心的调查。","authors":"Jeanie E Jaramillo,&nbsp;H Glenn Anderson,&nbsp;J Paul Jaramillo,&nbsp;Mary Lou Nester,&nbsp;Shu Shum","doi":"10.1081/clt-120039543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to determine current practices and opinions of poison center staff and directors regarding drug identification (ID) calls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Surveys were developed and mailed to 911 poison center staff members and 69 managing directors at 69 poison control centers in the United States in December 2001.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses were received from 317 staff members and 33 directors from 49 centers. Nearly half of the staff respondents stated that they had not received drug ID training beyond how to look up the identity of an oral medication. About one-half of staff and director respondents stated that their centers had only informal (unwritten) drug ID policies, while one-fourth each responded they had formal written policies or had no policy at all. A majority of respondents indicated that their centers either allow or require specialists to provide ID for non-ingestion-related cases. Nearly all staff and director respondents routinely provide ID services to law enforcement officers and health care professionals regardless of whether ingestion was involved. Slightly more than one-half of staff respondents inquire about possible ingestion with almost every request, while one-third only inquire when the caller gives some indication that ingestion may have occurred. Case-based questions reveal that different practices are utilized depending on the type of medication for which ID is being requested. Factors such as risk of liability, patient confidentiality, guardianship, and the person's best interest appear to contribute to decisions regarding the provision of medication ID.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Drug identification practices vary from center to center throughout the United States. Though the service is greatly utilized, few centers have written policies. In addition, training for the provision of this service appears to be inadequate in many centers. The development of drug identification guidelines to be utilized throughout poison centers would provide much needed consistency and guidance.</p>","PeriodicalId":17447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of toxicology. Clinical toxicology","volume":"42 4","pages":"371-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1081/clt-120039543","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drug identification: a survey of poison control centers.\",\"authors\":\"Jeanie E Jaramillo,&nbsp;H Glenn Anderson,&nbsp;J Paul Jaramillo,&nbsp;Mary Lou Nester,&nbsp;Shu Shum\",\"doi\":\"10.1081/clt-120039543\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to determine current practices and opinions of poison center staff and directors regarding drug identification (ID) calls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Surveys were developed and mailed to 911 poison center staff members and 69 managing directors at 69 poison control centers in the United States in December 2001.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses were received from 317 staff members and 33 directors from 49 centers. Nearly half of the staff respondents stated that they had not received drug ID training beyond how to look up the identity of an oral medication. About one-half of staff and director respondents stated that their centers had only informal (unwritten) drug ID policies, while one-fourth each responded they had formal written policies or had no policy at all. A majority of respondents indicated that their centers either allow or require specialists to provide ID for non-ingestion-related cases. Nearly all staff and director respondents routinely provide ID services to law enforcement officers and health care professionals regardless of whether ingestion was involved. Slightly more than one-half of staff respondents inquire about possible ingestion with almost every request, while one-third only inquire when the caller gives some indication that ingestion may have occurred. Case-based questions reveal that different practices are utilized depending on the type of medication for which ID is being requested. Factors such as risk of liability, patient confidentiality, guardianship, and the person's best interest appear to contribute to decisions regarding the provision of medication ID.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Drug identification practices vary from center to center throughout the United States. Though the service is greatly utilized, few centers have written policies. In addition, training for the provision of this service appears to be inadequate in many centers. The development of drug identification guidelines to be utilized throughout poison centers would provide much needed consistency and guidance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of toxicology. Clinical toxicology\",\"volume\":\"42 4\",\"pages\":\"371-81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1081/clt-120039543\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of toxicology. Clinical toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1081/clt-120039543\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of toxicology. Clinical toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1081/clt-120039543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是确定目前中毒中心工作人员和主任对药物识别(ID)电话的做法和意见。方法:2001年12月,对美国69个中毒控制中心的911名中毒中心工作人员和69名总经理进行了问卷调查。结果:收到来自49个中心的317名工作人员和33名主任的回复。近一半的工作人员答复说,除了如何查找口服药物的身份外,他们没有接受过药物识别培训。大约一半的工作人员和主任受访者表示,他们的中心只有非正式的(不成文的)药物ID政策,而四分之一的人回答他们有正式的书面政策或根本没有政策。大多数受访者表示,他们的中心允许或要求专家为非摄入相关病例提供身份证。几乎所有答复的工作人员和主任都定期向执法人员和保健专业人员提供身份证服务,无论是否涉及摄入。略多于一半的员工受访者几乎每次请求都询问可能的摄入,而三分之一的人只在呼叫者给出可能发生摄入的指示时才询问。基于案例的问题表明,根据请求ID的药物类型,使用了不同的实践。诸如责任风险、患者保密、监护和个人最大利益等因素似乎有助于决定是否提供药物ID。结论:美国各个中心的药物鉴定实践各不相同。虽然这项服务得到了很大的利用,但很少有中心有书面政策。此外,许多中心似乎缺乏提供这项服务的培训。在整个中毒中心使用的药物鉴定指南的发展将提供非常需要的一致性和指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Drug identification: a survey of poison control centers.

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine current practices and opinions of poison center staff and directors regarding drug identification (ID) calls.

Methods: Surveys were developed and mailed to 911 poison center staff members and 69 managing directors at 69 poison control centers in the United States in December 2001.

Results: Responses were received from 317 staff members and 33 directors from 49 centers. Nearly half of the staff respondents stated that they had not received drug ID training beyond how to look up the identity of an oral medication. About one-half of staff and director respondents stated that their centers had only informal (unwritten) drug ID policies, while one-fourth each responded they had formal written policies or had no policy at all. A majority of respondents indicated that their centers either allow or require specialists to provide ID for non-ingestion-related cases. Nearly all staff and director respondents routinely provide ID services to law enforcement officers and health care professionals regardless of whether ingestion was involved. Slightly more than one-half of staff respondents inquire about possible ingestion with almost every request, while one-third only inquire when the caller gives some indication that ingestion may have occurred. Case-based questions reveal that different practices are utilized depending on the type of medication for which ID is being requested. Factors such as risk of liability, patient confidentiality, guardianship, and the person's best interest appear to contribute to decisions regarding the provision of medication ID.

Conclusion: Drug identification practices vary from center to center throughout the United States. Though the service is greatly utilized, few centers have written policies. In addition, training for the provision of this service appears to be inadequate in many centers. The development of drug identification guidelines to be utilized throughout poison centers would provide much needed consistency and guidance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative toxicity of citalopram and the newer antidepressants after overdose. Evaluation of promotility agents to limit the gut bioavailability of extended-release acetaminophen. A comparison of the pharmacokinetics of oral and sublingual cyproheptadine. Accidental poisoning with autumn crocus. N-acetylcysteine for the treatment of clove oil-induced fulminant hepatic failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1