医药前沿
醫藥前沿
의약전연
YIAYAO QIANYAN
2013年
25期
107-108
,共2页
张辉%张小军%玄兆宇%王云飞
張輝%張小軍%玄兆宇%王雲飛
장휘%장소군%현조우%왕운비
高血压%院区门诊和所站%治疗费用
高血壓%院區門診和所站%治療費用
고혈압%원구문진화소참%치료비용
目的通过分析社区高血压患者发病情况和用药情况讨论比较合理的社区高血压治疗路径。方法通过对我院门诊及辖区5个卫生所站共计2000例门诊医保高血压患者进行问卷调查的形式进行随机调研,其中我院门诊1100例,5个卫生所站900例。结果高血压控制率(血压<140/90mmHg,1mmHg=0.133kPa)方面,我院门诊高血压控制率为52.7%,卫生站高血压平均控制率为49.4%,二者高血压控制率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。用药情况比较,我院门诊以血管紧张素II受体拮抗剂和长效钙通道阻滞剂为主要选择,高血压辅助药的使用率普遍较高,所站血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂和普通钙通道阻滞剂,以及其他降压药的使用率较高。费用比较,只统计门诊医保报销后的费用。我院门诊患者关于高血压的药物及相关费用支出平均1233.3元/年,远远高于所站的相关费用528.6元/年。结论医院门诊和所属所站在高血压的控制率方面没有显著差异,但相关费用支出却有明显区别,医院门诊治疗成本明显高于所站。
目的通過分析社區高血壓患者髮病情況和用藥情況討論比較閤理的社區高血壓治療路徑。方法通過對我院門診及轄區5箇衛生所站共計2000例門診醫保高血壓患者進行問捲調查的形式進行隨機調研,其中我院門診1100例,5箇衛生所站900例。結果高血壓控製率(血壓<140/90mmHg,1mmHg=0.133kPa)方麵,我院門診高血壓控製率為52.7%,衛生站高血壓平均控製率為49.4%,二者高血壓控製率差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)。用藥情況比較,我院門診以血管緊張素II受體拮抗劑和長效鈣通道阻滯劑為主要選擇,高血壓輔助藥的使用率普遍較高,所站血管緊張素轉換酶抑製劑和普通鈣通道阻滯劑,以及其他降壓藥的使用率較高。費用比較,隻統計門診醫保報銷後的費用。我院門診患者關于高血壓的藥物及相關費用支齣平均1233.3元/年,遠遠高于所站的相關費用528.6元/年。結論醫院門診和所屬所站在高血壓的控製率方麵沒有顯著差異,但相關費用支齣卻有明顯區彆,醫院門診治療成本明顯高于所站。
목적통과분석사구고혈압환자발병정황화용약정황토론비교합리적사구고혈압치료로경。방법통과대아원문진급할구5개위생소참공계2000례문진의보고혈압환자진행문권조사적형식진행수궤조연,기중아원문진1100례,5개위생소참900례。결과고혈압공제솔(혈압<140/90mmHg,1mmHg=0.133kPa)방면,아원문진고혈압공제솔위52.7%,위생참고혈압평균공제솔위49.4%,이자고혈압공제솔차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。용약정황비교,아원문진이혈관긴장소II수체길항제화장효개통도조체제위주요선택,고혈압보조약적사용솔보편교고,소참혈관긴장소전환매억제제화보통개통도조체제,이급기타강압약적사용솔교고。비용비교,지통계문진의보보소후적비용。아원문진환자관우고혈압적약물급상관비용지출평균1233.3원/년,원원고우소참적상관비용528.6원/년。결론의원문진화소속소참재고혈압적공제솔방면몰유현저차이,단상관비용지출각유명현구별,의원문진치료성본명현고우소참。
Purpose. Through the analysis of hypertension patients in community infection situation and herbs in to discuss more reasonable community hypertension treatment path. Methods. Through the in our outpatient service and jurisdiction 5 health center station a total of 2000 cases of clinic medical insurance hypertension patients in the form of questionnaire survey to a random survey, including our outpatient service 1100 examples, 5 health center station 900 cases. The results. High blood pressure control (blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg, 1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa), high blood pressure control in our outpatient service for 52.7%, clinic hypertension is 49.4%, and the average control hypertension control the difference have no sense of statistics (P <0.05) . Herbs in comparison, our outpatient service to angiotensin I receptor antagonist and long-term calcium channel blockers as the main choice, the utilization rate of hypertension auxiliary medicine general y high, stand angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and ordinary calcium channel blockers, and other of antihypertensive utilization rate is higher. Cost comparison, only statistical outpatient service medical insurance reimbursement of expenses after. Our clinic patients about hypertension drugs and related expenses average 1233.3 yuan/year, far higher than the related expenses are standing 528.6 yuan/year. Conclusion. The hospital outpatient service and belong to stand in the high blood pressure control has no significant difference, but the expense has obvious difference, the hospital outpatient treatment cost is obviously higher than that of the stand.