Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Respiratory diseases present a challenge for the healthcare system due to their prevalence and clinical impact. The aim of this study was to explore the current situation of hospital pharmacy in the field of respiratory diseases.
METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study, with a national scope, divided into 2 parts. In an initial phase, the activity and level of pharmaceutical care in respiratory diseases was evaluated through an online questionnaire using REDCap. The survey was addressed to department chiefs and consisted of 17 items, divided into 2 modules: general data and general activity. The second phase was open to hospital pharmacists, with the aim of exploring their opinion on care, training, and improvement needs. The number of items in this phase was 19, divided into 5 modules: general data, pharmaceutical care, competencies, training, and degree of satisfaction.
RESULTS: In the first phase, 23 hospitals were included. Most of them (n=20) had a pharmacist in charge of respiratory diseases. However, a large proportion of them dedicated less than 40% of their working day to this activity. The pharmacist\'s activity occurred at the level of external patients (n=21), hospitalised patients (n=16), and secondarily in management (n=8). Integration is greater in pathologies such as asthma, IPF, pulmonary hypertension, and bronchiectasis. Participation in committees was present in 15 hospitals, with variability in pathologies and degree of involvement. In the second phase, 164 pharmacists participated, who considered pharmaceutical care in cystic fibrosis, asthma, and lung transplant as a priority. 51% considered integration to be adequate and 91% considered it necessary to implement prioritisation criteria. Professional competencies ranged from 6.5 to 6.9 out of 10 points. Only 45% of participants had received specific training in the last 4 years, indicating greater priority for asthma, pulmonary hypertension, and IPF.
CONCLUSIONS: Most centers have pharmacists specialised in respiratory diseases. However, there is room for improvement in terms of subspecialisation, participation in multidisciplinary committees, implementation of prioritisation criteria, diversification in pathologies treated, as well as greater specific training in this area.
METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study, with a national scope, divided into 2 parts. In an initial phase, the activity and level of pharmaceutical care in respiratory diseases was evaluated through an online questionnaire using REDCap. The survey was addressed to department chiefs and consisted of 17 items, divided into 2 modules: general data and general activity. The second phase was open to hospital pharmacists, with the aim of exploring their opinion on care, training, and improvement needs. The number of items in this phase was 19, divided into 5 modules: general data, pharmaceutical care, competencies, training, and degree of satisfaction.
RESULTS: In the first phase, 23 hospitals were included. Most of them (n=20) had a pharmacist in charge of respiratory diseases. However, a large proportion of them dedicated less than 40% of their working day to this activity. The pharmacist\'s activity occurred at the level of external patients (n=21), hospitalised patients (n=16), and secondarily in management (n=8). Integration is greater in pathologies such as asthma, IPF, pulmonary hypertension, and bronchiectasis. Participation in committees was present in 15 hospitals, with variability in pathologies and degree of involvement. In the second phase, 164 pharmacists participated, who considered pharmaceutical care in cystic fibrosis, asthma, and lung transplant as a priority. 51% considered integration to be adequate and 91% considered it necessary to implement prioritisation criteria. Professional competencies ranged from 6.5 to 6.9 out of 10 points. Only 45% of participants had received specific training in the last 4 years, indicating greater priority for asthma, pulmonary hypertension, and IPF.
CONCLUSIONS: Most centers have pharmacists specialised in respiratory diseases. However, there is room for improvement in terms of subspecialisation, participation in multidisciplinary committees, implementation of prioritisation criteria, diversification in pathologies treated, as well as greater specific training in this area.
摘要：
目的：呼吸系统疾病由于其患病率和临床影响而对医疗保健系统提出了挑战。本研究旨在探讨医院药学在呼吸系统疾病领域的应用现状。
方法：观察性，横断面研究，在全国范围内，分为两部分。在初始阶段,通过使用REDCap的在线问卷评估呼吸系统疾病的药学服务活动和水平.这项调查是针对部门负责人，包括17个项目，分为2个模块：一般数据和一般活动。第二阶段向医院药剂师开放,为了探索他们对护理的看法，培训,和改进需求。本阶段项目数为19项，分为5个模块：一般数据，药学服务,能力，培训,和满意度。
结果：在第一阶段，包括23家医院。他们中的大多数（n=20）都有负责呼吸系统疾病的药剂师。然而,其中很大一部分人将不到40％的工作日用于此活动。药剂师的活动发生在外部患者的水平（n=21），住院患者（n=16），其次是管理(n=8)。在诸如哮喘等病理中整合更大，IPF,肺动脉高压,还有支气管扩张.15家医院参加了委员会，病理和受累程度不同。在第二阶段,164名药剂师参加，他考虑了囊性纤维化的药物治疗，哮喘,肺移植是当务之急。51％的人认为整合是足够的，91％的人认为有必要实施优先级标准。10分中的专业能力从6.5到6.9不等。在过去的4年中，只有45％的参与者接受了特定的培训。表明哮喘的优先级更高，肺动脉高压,IPF。
结论：大多数中心都有专门研究呼吸系统疾病的药剂师。然而,在亚专业化方面还有改进的空间，参与多学科委员会，执行优先标准，治疗的病理多样化，以及在这方面进行更具体的培训。
方法：观察性，横断面研究，在全国范围内，分为两部分。在初始阶段,通过使用REDCap的在线问卷评估呼吸系统疾病的药学服务活动和水平.这项调查是针对部门负责人，包括17个项目，分为2个模块：一般数据和一般活动。第二阶段向医院药剂师开放,为了探索他们对护理的看法，培训,和改进需求。本阶段项目数为19项，分为5个模块：一般数据，药学服务,能力，培训,和满意度。
结果：在第一阶段，包括23家医院。他们中的大多数（n=20）都有负责呼吸系统疾病的药剂师。然而,其中很大一部分人将不到40％的工作日用于此活动。药剂师的活动发生在外部患者的水平（n=21），住院患者（n=16），其次是管理(n=8)。在诸如哮喘等病理中整合更大，IPF,肺动脉高压,还有支气管扩张.15家医院参加了委员会，病理和受累程度不同。在第二阶段,164名药剂师参加，他考虑了囊性纤维化的药物治疗，哮喘,肺移植是当务之急。51％的人认为整合是足够的，91％的人认为有必要实施优先级标准。10分中的专业能力从6.5到6.9不等。在过去的4年中，只有45％的参与者接受了特定的培训。表明哮喘的优先级更高，肺动脉高压,IPF。
结论：大多数中心都有专门研究呼吸系统疾病的药剂师。然而,在亚专业化方面还有改进的空间，参与多学科委员会，执行优先标准，治疗的病理多样化，以及在这方面进行更具体的培训。
