scholarly journals Concept of essential medicines and rational use in public health

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
SitanshuSekhar Kar ◽  
HimanshuSekhar Pradhan ◽  
GuruPrasad Mohanta
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Teklehaimanot Fentie Wendie ◽  
Abdulmejid Ahmed ◽  
Solomon Ahmed Mohammed

Abstract Background Rational drug use requires that patients receive and take medication appropriately. Though the process of diagnosis and pharmaceutical care is complex, World Health Organization (WHO)/international network for rational use of drugs (INRUD) core drug use indicators investigate drug use to minimize the hazardous effect of the drug and enhance the wise use of scares resources. This study assessed drug use patterns in health centers of Dessie town using WHO/INRUD indicators. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in public health centers of Dessie town. Data were retrospectively collected from 1500 prescriptions dispensed from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018 using WHO data collection tool to assess prescribing indicators. For patient care and health facility indicators, 600 patients and 3 health centers were prospectively reviewed. Systematic random sampling was used to select samples. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20. Results The average number of drugs per encounter was 2.1. The percentage of encounters with antibiotics and injection was 44% and 13.9%, respectively. The percentage of drugs prescribed by generic name and from an essential drug list was 98% and 100%, respectively. On average, patients spent 4.7 min for consultation and 105 s for dispensing. From 1305 prescribed drugs, 92% were dispensed, while only 4% were labeled adequately. More than half (54.8%) of patients had adequate knowledge of their medication. None of the health centers had an essential drug list. The availability of key essential medicines was 64.10%. Conclusion This study demonstrated irrational drug use practices in all healthcare facilities. Polypharmacy, antibiotics over-prescribing, short consultation and dispensing times, inadequate labeling of medicines, inadequate level of patients' knowledge about prescribed medicines, and unavailability of key drugs in stock were found to be the major problems. Continuous refreshment trainings on rational use of drugs and WHO recommendations should be given for prescribers and pharmacists. Further, we recommend studies involving large number of facilities to estimate overall prescribing practices.


Author(s):  
Eddy Gilissen ◽  
◽  
Chris Mulligan ◽  
Simon Tottman ◽  
Per Troein ◽  
...  

Healthcare systems across the world are looking at ways of maintaining the continuity of supply of medicines to patients in times of crisis.Whilst this is not a new phenomenon, the additional burden placed on the supply chain during COVID-19 has meant it has come more into the spotlight. The need to use a stockpile can be caused by an interruption to supply, a rapid and unexpected peak in demand, or when both an interruption to supply and a peak in demand occur simultaneously. The objectives of a stockpile will guide the portfolio breadth and depth to be held. Stockpile objectives are broadly driven either by government requirements to protect public health or by organisations seeking toachieve commercial gain. These drivers are not mutually exclusive as in the case of holding safety stock and Public Service Obligation stock. An Emergency Stockpile is Public Health driven and held in order to supply essential medicines during a signifcant or catastrophic event. Emergency stockpiles can be split into three categories — preparation for imminent event, disease specifc response and general contingency stockpiles. Governments and authorities determine which products and volumes should be held in an emergency stockpile which may be guided by the World Health Organizations (WHO) l ist of essential medicines.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faith A. Okalebo ◽  
Eric M. Guantai ◽  
Aggrey O. Nyabuti

ABSTRACTBackgroundIrrational drug use is a global problem. However, the extent of the problem is higher in low-income countries. This study set out to assess and characterize drug use at the public primary healthcare centers (PPHCCs) in a rural county in Kenya, using the World Health Organization/ International Network for the Rational Use of Drugs (WHO/INRUD) core drug use indicators methodology.MethodsTen PPHCCs were randomly selected. From each PPHCC, ninety prescriptions from October to December 2018 were sampled and data extracted. Three-hundred (30 per PPHCC) patients and ten (1 per PPHCC) dispensers were also observed and interviewed. The WHO/INRUD core drug use indicators were used to assess the patterns of drug use.ResultsThe average number of drugs per prescription was 2.9 (SD 0.5) (recommended: 1.6– 1.8), percentage of drugs prescribed by generic names was 27.7% (recommended: 100%); the percentage of prescriptions with an antibiotic was 84.8% (recommended: 20.0–26.8%), and with an injection prescribed was 24.9% (recommended: 13.4–24.1%). The percentage of prescribed drugs from the Kenya Essential Medicines List was 96.7% (recommended: 100%). The average consultation time was 4.1 min (SD 1.7) (recommended: ≥10 min), the average dispensing time was 131.5 sec (SD 41.5) (recommended: ≥90 sec), the percentage of drugs actually dispensed was 76.3% (recommended: 100%), the percentage of drugs adequately labeled was 22.6% (recommended: 100%) and percentage of patients with correct knowledge of dispensed drugs was 54.7% (recommended: 100%). Only 20% of the PPHCCs had a copy of KEML available, and 80% of the selected essential drugs assessed were available.ConclusionThe survey shows irrational drug use practices, particularly polypharmacy, non-generic prescribing, overuse of antibiotics, short consultation time and inadequacy of drug labeling. Effective programs and activities promoting the rational use of drugs are the key interventions suggested at all the health facilities.


Author(s):  
Lawrence O. Gostin

How can we keep people – wherever they live – healthy and safe? Among all global health initiatives, universal health coverage (UHC) has garnered most political attention. But can UHC (as important as it is) actually achieve the two fundamental aspirations of the right to health: keeping people healthy and safe, while leaving no one behind? There is a universal longing for health and security, but also a deep-seated belief in fairness and equity. Can UHC achieve both health and equity, or what I have called, "global health with justice?" What makes a population healthy and safe? Certainly, universal and affordable access to healthcare is essential, including clinical prevention, treatment, and essential medicines. But beyond medical care are public health services, including surveillance, clean air, potable water, sanitation, vector control, and tobacco control. The final and most important factor in good health are social determinants, including housing, employment, education, and equity. If we can provide everyone with these three essential conditions for good health (healthcare, public health and social determinants), it would vastly improve global health. But we also need to take measures to leave no one behind. To achieve equity, we need to plan for it, and here I propose national health equity programs of action. Society’s highest obligation is to achieve global health, with justice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-158
Author(s):  
Jennifer McDonell ◽  
Kathleen Costello ◽  
Joanna Laurson-Doube ◽  
Nick Rijke ◽  
Gavin Giovannoni ◽  
...  

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) publishes a biennial Essential Medicines List (EML) to assist governments in low-resource settings to prioritize their spending on medicines. Currently, no medicines on the EML have a multiple sclerosis (MS) indication. Multiple Sclerosis International Federation (MSIF) prepared an application for inclusion of MS disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for the 2019 EML together with the regional Committees for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (TRIMS) and the World Federation of Neurology. Rationale: The MSIF taskforce categorized 15 DMTs according to their efficacy and risk profiles to ensure the ability to treat as many different clinical scenarios as possible. Three DMTs were selected: glatiramer acetate, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab. Outcome: The WHO Expert Committee did not recommend the addition of any of the DMTs to the EML. They acknowledged the public health burden of MS, the need for effective and affordable MS medications, and the high volume of letters received in support of the application but requested a revised application. Discussion: Despite the negative outcome, the repeated recognition of MS as a global public health burden is sending a powerful message to governments globally that a range of affordable and good quality medications need to be available to health systems and people affected by MS.


2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. A92
Author(s):  
MZ Younis ◽  
S Hamidi ◽  
D Forgione ◽  
M Hartmann

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document