Research on the current situation and development suggestions of centralized （cloud） prescription review center of the close-knit county-level medical consortium in a city
- VernacularTitle:某市紧密型县域医共体集中（云）审方中心建设现状及发展建议
- Author:
Lu HE
1
;
Mingyang ZHU
1
;
Xiaolei HU
2
;
Yan QIAN
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University，Chongqing 400010，China
2. Dept. of Pharmacy，Shapingba Hospital，Chongqing University，Chongqing 401300，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
close-knit county-level medical consortium;
centralized prescription review;
cloud prescription review;
prescription
- From:
China Pharmacy
2026;37(5):578-583
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To investigate the actual construction and operation status of established and under-construction centralized （cloud） prescription review centers （shortened for “prescription review center”） of close-knit county-level medical consortium in a certain city， so as to provide reference for improving the construction quality of the prescription review center. METHODS An online questionnaire survey was conducted to collect the data from 51 established and under-construction prescription review center in the city， covering basic information， funding sources， talent management， system construction， review rule maintenance， prescription review practices， prescription evaluation， data utilization， and current challenges. The collected data were summarized and analyzed. RESULTS A total of 51 valid questionnaires were retrieved， covering 32 established and 19 under-construction prescription review center. Among the 32 established prescription review centers， the main funding sources for their construction came from government financial allocations， accounting for 56.25%. Only 25.00% of prescription review center had review pharmacists who fully met national qualification requirements， and just 55.00% updated more than 10 review rule entries per month on average. Outpatient prescription verification realized full coverage， but 37.50% of prescription review centers only supported rationality verification of single prescriptions， and 50.00% could not retrieve laboratory and examination results to assist in prescription review. Additionally， 40.62% of prescription review center had not regularly conducted prescription evaluations for primary care institutions. The data from prescription review center was mainly used to support medication monitoring. Among the 19 prescription review centers currently in the planning stage， 63.16% had no identified funding sources. CONCLUSIONS The operation and construction of prescription review center in the city face challenges， such as funding shortages， absence of collaborative incentive mechanisms， and insufficient manpower.It is suggested that the state should issue a unified standard for the construction of the prescription review center as soon as possible， and local health administrative departments should formulate supporting policies and clarify assessment indicators in combination with the actual situation of the region.
