Objective: The present study aimed to investigate the identification codes of tablets used in clinical practice, and to clarify the influence of these codes on the differentiation of drugs brought in by patients, and those that have been dispensed as one-dose packages at Tottori University Hospital.
Methods: We obtained the identification codes of tablets, which were released on the market before December 2013, based on their package inserts.  Concerning drugs without identification codes, we conducted a questionnaire survey involving companies releasing these drugs in order to clarify the reasons for the absence of these codes.  Among the drugs brought to the Hospital by patients who were hospitalized in 2013, we investigated the identification codes of tablets dispensed as one-dose packages, and the accuracy of the differentiation of these tablets.
Results: We investigated a total of 5,797 tablets. Among the tablets in which the identification codes imprinted on one side of these tablets were the same, the other side did not have codes for 65 tablets (28 pairs), and had different codes for 1,836 tablets (198 pairs).  A total of 244 tablets did not have identification codes.  The most common reason for releasing drugs without such codes was the cost.  Investigation of the drugs brought in by patients hospitalized revealed that some pharmacists mistook Grinolart®50 mg for Glucobay®50 mg due to them having the same code.
Conclusion: To prevent the misidentification of drugs brought in by patients, hospital pharmacists need to cooperate with other hospitals and health insurance pharmacies, and dispense drugs while regarding their distinguishability as of major importance.  In addition, to increase the distinguishability, identification codes need to be imprinted on both sides of tablets, and there is a need to avoid manufacturing drugs whose identification codes are the same.

Purpose: We report a case of delirium and convulsion after administration of olanzapine in a cancer patient with refractory vomiting. Case report: The patient was a male in his 70s who suffered from lung cancer. After chemotherapy, olanzapine was used for refractory nausea and vomiting. Since this treatment, the patient has experienced delirium and convulsions. While we modified some reversible causes of the delirium, the delirium did not improve. Discontinuation of olanzapine resulted in improvement of the delirium. Recurrent convulsions did not occur with sodium valproate. Olanzapine might increase the risk of delirium and convulsions.

　　Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is performed after oxygen therapy and breathing therapy. The usefulness of HBO therapy in emergency treatment has been reported. In this study, we examined the effectiveness of HBO for CO poisoning that was performed at our hospital over the past 5 years. Subjects were 23 patients who had HBO therapy for CO poisoning in the period January 2008-November 2013. The male to female ratio of the cases was 14:9 and the mean age was 54.6±20.8 years. The cause was suicide in 39.1% of cases and accident in 60.9%. The mean number of treatments was 5.4±6.8. The atmosphere absolute was 2ATA:2.8ATA=12:11. The ratio of direct conveyance of the patient to our hospital to indirect conveyance of the patient from another hospital was 15:8. The effectiveness of HBO therapy at the time of discharge was 73.9%. However, delayed neuropsychiatric sequelae (DNS) was detected in 3 of the 23 cases of CO poisoning. No correlations were found between elapsed time after CO inhalation and various blood parameters. However, time to start of therapy is important for DNS, and our results suggest that early treatment at a hospital with a hyperbaric chamber is necessary.