OBJECTIVE To optimize the drug placement layout， reduce pharmacists’ dispensing time， and improve the work efficiency of the inpatient pharmacy. METHODS An ABC-CVA classification method was constructed. The ABC classification was first employed to categorize drugs into three groups [A （high frequency)， B （medium frequency）， and C （low frequency）] based on drug usage frequency. Subsequently， the CVA （Critical Value Analysis） method was applied to further classify drugs with low frequency （mainly category C） but requiring urgent use （e.g.， emergency drugs） or occupying large space. RESULTS After optimizing the drug placement layout based on this method， the average daily dispensing time for long-term prescriptions across three major wards （internal medicine， surgery， and intensive care unit） was shortened by （14.7±4.9） min. The optimized average daily dispensing time in each ward was significantly lower than that before optimization， and all differences were statistically significant （ P ＜0.001）. CONCLUSIONS The established ABC-CVA classification method can precisely facilitate the optimization of drug layout in inpatient pharmacies， significantly improve pharmacists’ dispensing efficiency， and enhance the service quality of inpatient pharmacies.

This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively compare 34 global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） health systems guidance documents （HSGs） and 6 World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs. The comparison involved topic， participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability， with the aim of exploring the characteristics of emergency HSGs. The results showed that the emergency HSGs had an overall average score of 49%， with topic having the highest score， recommendations having the second highest score， and participants having the lowest score. The standard HSGs had an overall average score of 79%， with high scores in all items. The emergency HSGs had lower scores in participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability than the standard HSGs （P<0.001）， while the COVID-19 emergency HSGs developed by the WHO had higher score in topic than the standard HSGs （P<0.05）. Compared with those released by countries， the COVID-19 emergency HSG developed by the WHO showed superiority in all items and overall scores （P=0.000 2）. This indicates that emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， place equal emphasis on topic and recommendations as standard HSGs but have low requirements in terms of expert participation， evidence support， and comprehensive consideration in the time- and resource-limited context. They have the characteristics of prominent topics， clear purposes， orientation to demand， keeping up with the latest evidence， flexible adjustment， and timeliness， emphasizing immediate implementation effects， weakening long-term effects， and focusing on comprehensive benefits. Additionally， developers， types， and report completeness are important influencing factors.