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.

Goto mentioned that we should consider the Continuing Education Unit (CEU) system, or the additional training after graduation which fulfills the conditions for the practitioner of acupuncture and moxibustion to function as a national health care provider. There he entertained another proposal that it was necessary to also consider some special education before the graduation. Moreover, he proposed considering the license renewal nature as appeal into society. Yamada said that the essence of an acupuncture and moxibustion therapy was to alleviate the general malaise. That is, a home practitioner of acupuncture and moxibustion in stead of a family physician. It was said that the establishment of the CEU system required that a consorted effort of acupuncture colleges, the industry, and the academia. Kitakouji introduced their CEU system developed with the cooperation of the Meiji College of Oriental Medicine Teaching Hospital and the Acupuncture and Moxibustion Center. The content of trainings after the graduation is set to teach how to communicate and work accordingly with the physicians. Ogawa suggested that we should make a new advanced licensure system (license to practice). Yamaoka introduced the after graduation training program at the Foundation for Oriental Medicine Research, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital. Following are the the contents of training- (1) Moxibustion Technique and Care, (2) Approach from the point of the Whole Person Medicine (Chronological Health Analysis), etc.