Drug Shortages in Health Care Institutions: Perspectives in Early 2014
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The year 2012 was marked by an unprecedented number of drug shortages in Canada. This crisis was due in particular to the publication, in November 2011, of a warning letter from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Novartis International AG for its Boucherville plant, which was managed by Sandoz Canada.1,2 Although Sandoz was not the only drug manufacturer with shortages for some products, the wide range of single-source generic parenteral products affected by this crisis led to a high level of uncertainty in the Canadian health care sector. Since the publication of our most recent analysis of the Canadian drug shortage situation,3 the FDA has issued at least one other warning letter, this time to Apotex, a Canadian generic manufacturer.4 In 2012, our research group evaluated the impact of drug shortages in 5 Quebec teaching hospitals and highlighted administrative costs of at least Can$0.5 million to manage these shortages, mainly at the level of individual pharmacies.5 Barthelemy and others6 also published a case study of the management of drug shortages in hospitals, illustrating the challenges for pharmacists and the risks for patients. In response to this crisis, many stakeholders (including the Standing Committee on Health, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Ordre des pharmaciens du Quebec, the Canadian Pharmacists Association, and the group purchasing organization SigmaSante) came together in 2012 and made a set of recommendations to various levels of government, buying groups, supply chains, the pharmaceutical industry, and individual pharmacists.7 Surprisingly, only one-third of the 30 recommendations had been implemented 1 year later.7 In June 2013, a Member of Parliament from the New Democratic Party of Canada proposed a private member’s bill on the mandatory disclosure of drug shortages in Canada,8 but this bill was defeated at second reading in February 2014. In September 2013, Health Canada published a drug-shortage protocol and tool kit, based on the work of the Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee on Drug Shortages.9 In its Appendix B, the protocol establishes a guide for drug-shortage notification and communication and lists the key relevant fields to be completed by drug manufacturers in the Canadian drug shortage database (www.drugshortages.ca). Pharmacists and various stakeholders, such as the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists and group purchasing organizations, found this database to be incomplete and requested the addition of key data (e.g., number of similar commercialized products, links to other relevant information sources). Disappointingly, it took more than 24 months after initial consultations for these key data to be added as fields on the website for complete update by the manufacturers. Before then, these key data were available only on a website known as “FridayPM”. The FridayPM website, a voluntary, pharmacistinitiated tool launched in early 2011, was closed in August 2014, as drug manufacturers are now allowed by some group purchasing organizations to declare their drug shortages only on the Canad ian drug shortage platform.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».