An analysis of the unit dose pharmacy system in small hospitals Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/v979v566w

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • The traditional and the unit dose pharmacy distribution system were compared to determine which one, in thd opinion of hospital pharmacists and administrators, is best suited to the needs of hospitals of less than 200 beds. The comparison was made by having the pharmacists rate the alternative distribution systems on five criteria at four hospital size categories. The hospital size categories were less than 50 beds, 50 to 100 beds, 100 to 150 beds and greater than 150 beds. The comparison criteria were cost, control of medication, pharmacist utilization, patient safety and loss and pilferage. Each criterion had a certain amount of weight in determining the final rating of each distribution system. This weight was determined by the administrators' and pharmacists' rating of the importance of each criteria in governing the type of distribution system used in a hospital. The final rating given each distribution system at a given hospital size was the sum of the products of the rating of each criterion and its respective importance rating, for all the criteria. The final results showed that the unit dose distribution system was felt to be substantially more suited to the needs of small hospitals. The unit dose system averaged at least 100 points better than the traditional system in all four hospital size categories.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Degree Level
Degree Name
Degree Field
Degree Grantor
Commencement Year
Advisor
Academic Affiliation
Non-Academic Affiliation
Subject
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed
Language
Digitization Specifications
  • File scanned at 300 ppi (Monochrome) using ScandAll PRO 1.8.1 on a Fi-6770A in PDF format. CVista PdfCompressor 5.0 was used for pdf compression and textual OCR.
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Kaylee Patterson (kdpscanner@gmail.com) on 2013-11-04T20:53:11Z No. of bitstreams: 1 KingsleyDanielBruce1976.pdf: 466868 bytes, checksum: 0b80bd27b497dea2a1fcd5046e34b851 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-11-04T21:40:46Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 KingsleyDanielBruce1976.pdf: 466868 bytes, checksum: 0b80bd27b497dea2a1fcd5046e34b851 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-11-04T21:25:55Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 KingsleyDanielBruce1976.pdf: 466868 bytes, checksum: 0b80bd27b497dea2a1fcd5046e34b851 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2013-11-04T21:40:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 KingsleyDanielBruce1976.pdf: 466868 bytes, checksum: 0b80bd27b497dea2a1fcd5046e34b851 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1975-08-26

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Last modified

Downloadable Content

Download PDF

Items