YAKHAK HOEJI (약학회지)

The Pharmaceutical Society of Korea (대한약학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Priority Therapeutic Groups to Expand Development of Prescribing Indicators using a Consensus Group of Health Care Professionals

전문가 조사를 활용한 약제급여 적정성 평가 항목 및 지표 확대방안 도출

  • Jeon, Ha-Lim (Research Center, Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Sook (Research Center, Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service) ;
  • Kim, Bo-Yun (Research Center, Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service)
  • 전하림 (건강보험심사평가원 연구조정실) ;
  • 김동숙 (건강보험심사평가원 연구조정실) ;
  • 김보연 (건강보험심사평가원 연구조정실)
  • Received : 2015.02.12
  • Accepted : 2015.07.06
  • Published : 2015.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Evaluation Project on Appropriate Prescribing (EPAP) which is analysing prescribing pattern and providing physicians feedback has begun in 2001. EPAP indicators are related to antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections, overuse of injection, polypharmacy (no. of drugs prescribed together, no. of prescriptions with 6 or more drugs), prescribing of specific medication group (drugs for acid related disorders, NSAIDs, corticosteroids) and medication expenditure per prescription day. The aim of this study was to suggest a development plan for EPAP indicators suitable for domestic situation. A consensus group consisting of seventeen health care professionals evaluated significance of each therapeutic class for EPAP indicators expansion considering information such as magnitude of issue, prescribing indicators of foreign countries, reimbursement criteria by each therapeutic class. Based on the data and group survey, 5 classes were selected as candidates for prescribing indicators and we presented 24 indicators regarding 5 classes. The results suggested that we need to augment evaluation indicators of additional area.

Keywords

References

  1. Barber, N. : What constitutes good prescribing? BMJ 310, 923 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6984.923
  2. World Health Organization : Rational use of medicines, Geneva (2004). available at: http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/rational_use/en/.
  3. Campbell, S. M., Cantrill, J. A. and Roberts, D. : Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study. BMJ 321, 425 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7258.425
  4. 건강보험심사평가원 : 약제급여 적정성 평가업무 매뉴얼. 건강보험심사평가원 (2007).
  5. 유근혁, 김설아, 김계숙, 김수경 : 항생제 처방률 공개 후 의료서비스 이용.공급 인식도 조사 결과(보도자료). 보건복지부, 건강보험심사평가원 (2007).
  6. 박실비아, 김남순, 채수미, 한은아, 류치영 : 의약품 정책이 의사의 처방에 미친 영향 연구. 한국보건사회연구원 연구보고서 (2013).
  7. 김동숙, 변진옥, 김수경, 이병란, 장선미, 박춘선, 강민아 : 약제급여 적정성 평가 개선방안 연구 - 처방지표를 중심으로. 건강보험심사평가원 (2009).
  8. 장윤형 기자 : [2013 국정감사] 항생제 처방 늘었다. 3차 항생제 4년간 '13만건'. 쿠키뉴스. 2013.10.18. Available at: http://news.kukinews.com/article/view.asp?page=1&gCode=cul&arcid=0007665187&cp=nv.
  9. 박근빈 기자 : 심평원 항생제지표 현실과 달라. 약사신문. 2012.09.25. Available at: http://pharmnews.co.kr/news/news_content.asp?sno=59167&part=%BA%B8%B0%C7%C1%A4%C3%A5.
  10. 하재규 기자 : 항생제 내성 문제 종합적인 관리 필요하다. 한의신문. 2014.08.22. Available at: http://www.akomnews.com/subpage/search_detail.php?code=A001&uid=93333&page=/subpage/search.php&nowpage=1&search_word=%B0%E6%C1%A6%C7%F9%B7%C2%B0%B3%B9%DF%B1%E2%B1%B8&search_key=all&sadop_date=--&eadop_date=--.
  11. 김수경, 김희은, 백미숙, 이숙향 : 급성 상기도 감염 항생제 처방률 공개 효과 분석. 한국임상약학회지 20, 242 (2010).
  12. Yun, J. M., Shin, D. W., Hwang, S. S., Cho, J., Nam, Y. S., Kim, J. H. and Cho, B. L. : Effect of public disclosure on antibiotic prescription rate for upper respiratory tract infections. JAMA Intern. Med. E1 (2014).
  13. 김윤, 이상일, 권순만, 강민아, 최상은, 은상준 : 요양급여 적정성 평가 효과분석 모형개발 연구. 서울대학교.건강보험심사평가원 용역과제 (2009).
  14. 최윤정, 권영대, 김창수, 김윤. 델파이 조사법을 이용한 의료 자원 사용의 효율성 평가지표 개발. 보건행정학회지 22, 65 (2012).
  15. World Health Organization : Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification (2013).
  16. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) : OECD Health data (2013).
  17. 신숙연, 박춘선, 김선민, 김남순, 이상일 : 의료의 질 평가 우선순위 설정. 보건행정학회지 19, 1 (2009).
  18. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) : National Healthcare Quality Report (2005).
  19. 건강보험심사평가원.건강보험공단 : 건강보험통계연보 (2013).
  20. 건강보험심사평가원 : 요양급여의 적용기준 및 방법에 관한 세부사항[약제] 지침 (2013).
  21. NHS Prescription Service. available at : http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/PrescriptionServices.aspx.
  22. Prescribing Support Unit. available at : http://www.ic.nhs.uk/psu.
  23. Quality Use of Medicine Evaluation Program, available at : http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/nmp-qumep.htm.
  24. COMPUS (Canadian Optimal Medication Prescribing & Utilization Service) of CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health), available at : http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/compus.
  25. Medco. Drug Trend Report: Predictions (2008).
  26. 유수연, 이보람, 이수옥, 전하림, 김동숙, 배승진 : 소화성궤양용제의 상대적 효과에 근거한 처방정보 제공방안 연구. 건강보험심사평가원 (2011).
  27. Anderson, M. : Is it possible to measure prescribing quality using only prescription data? Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 98, 314 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2006.pto_411.x
  28. Ashworth, M., Lea R., Gray, H., Rowlands, G., Gravelle, H. and Majeed, A. : How are primary care organizations using financial incentives to influence prescribing? J. Public Health 26, 48 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdh100
  29. Ashworth, M., Lea, R., Gray, H., Gravelle, H. and Majjed A. : Prescribing indicators and their use by primary care groups to influence prescribing. J. Clin Pharm. Ther. 27, 197 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00405.x
  30. Ashworth, M., Golding, S. and Majeed, A. : The development of prescribing incentive schemes in primary care: a longitudinal survey. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 53, 468 (2003).
  31. National Prescribing Service : Indicators of Quality Prescribing in Australian General Practice: A manual for users (2006).
  32. 김동숙, 배그린, 이학선, 김화영, 김수경, 엄중식, 장선미 : 외래호흡기계 상병별 항생제별 평가방안 연구. 건강보험심사평가원.질병관리본부 용역과제 (2010).
  33. Alberta management committee on Drug Utilization. Alberta drug utilization program. 2003. Available at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/adup/pdfs/AnnualReportAMCDUFinalDraft20022003woFinancials26SEPT03.pdf.
  34. U.S., NCQA (National Connittee for Quality Assurance)'s IHA (Intergrated Healthcare Association) California Pay for Performance Program Mearurement Year 2009 P4P Draft Manual. Available at http://www.iha.org/manuals_operations_2009.html.
  35. 건강보험심사평가원 급여평가실. 2012년 상반기 약제급여적정성평가 추구관리 결과 (2012).
  36. PING (Prescribing Indicators National Group) : Quality Prescribing Related Indicators. Available at : www.ic.nhs.uk/.../ping%20quality%20indicator%20definitions.doc.
  37. Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M. : A conceptual framework for constructing prescribing quality indicators: a proposal In DUROQUIM: Drug Utilisation Research Quality Indicator Meeting (13-15 May 2004). Jointly organized by WHO Regional office for Europe, EuroDRUG and RIZIV (2004).