Objetivos: Estimar a concordância entre as práticas e as evidências disponíveis em uma unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo de todos os pacientes internados durante 2001. As práticas foram classificadas em adequadas ou não-adequadas de acordo com recomendações. Esperava-se para as práticas recomendadas 90% de concordância, para as contra-indicadas, discordância de até 10% e para aquelas onde havia incertezas, 50%. Resultados: Foram selecionadas 114 publicações e avaliadas 253/275 internações (92%). O uso foi considerado apropriado para albumina em 47,6% (IC 95% 39% – 55%); dopamina <3mg/kg/min 87,9% (83% – 92%); sedação e analgesia 88,6% (87% – 90%); transfusões de concentrado de hemácias 95,2% (92% – 97%); profiliaxia de úlcera de estresse 89,7% (88% – 91%). / Objectives: Estimate the concordance between the practices and the evidence available in a pediatric intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective study of all admitted patients during 2001. The practices were classified as adequate or non-adequate according to recommendations. It was expected 90% concordance for the recommended practices, while for non-adequate practices, discordance until 10% and for those where there was doubt, 50%. Results: 114 publications were selected and 253/275 admissions (92%) were evaluated. Use was considered appropriate for albumin in 47.6% (IC 95% 39% – 55%); dopamine <3mg/kg/min 87.9% (83% – 92%); sedation and analgesia 88.6% (87% – 90%); red blood cell transfusions 95.2% (92% – 97%); stress ulcer prophylaxis 89.7% (88% – 91%).

Objetivos: Estimar a concordância entre as práticas e as evidências disponíveis em uma unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo de todos os pacientes internados durante 2001. As práticas foram classificadas em adequadas ou não-adequadas de acordo com recomendações. Esperava-se para as práticas recomendadas 90% de concordância, para as contra-indicadas, discordância de até 10% e para aquelas onde havia incertezas, 50%. Resultados: Foram selecionadas 114 publicações e avaliadas 253/275 internações (92%). O uso foi considerado apropriado para albumina em 47,6% (IC 95% 39% – 55%); dopamina <3mg/kg/min 87,9% (83% – 92%); sedação e analgesia 88,6% (87% – 90%); transfusões de concentrado de hemácias 95,2% (92% – 97%); profiliaxia de úlcera de estresse 89,7% (88% – 91%). / Objectives: Estimate the concordance between the practices and the evidence available in a pediatric intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective study of all admitted patients during 2001. The practices were classified as adequate or non-adequate according to recommendations. It was expected 90% concordance for the recommended practices, while for non-adequate practices, discordance until 10% and for those where there was doubt, 50%. Results: 114 publications were selected and 253/275 admissions (92%) were evaluated. Use was considered appropriate for albumin in 47.6% (IC 95% 39% – 55%); dopamine <3mg/kg/min 87.9% (83% – 92%); sedation and analgesia 88.6% (87% – 90%); red blood cell transfusions 95.2% (92% – 97%); stress ulcer prophylaxis 89.7% (88% – 91%).

The exponential growth in medical pharmaceuticals and related clinical trials have created a need to better understand the decision-making factors in the processes for developing hospital medication formularies. The purpose of the study was to identify, rank, and compare major factors impacting hospital formulary decision-making among three prescriber groups serving on a hospital's pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee. Prescribers were selected from the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center which is a large, multi-facility, academic oncology hospital. Specifically, the prescriber groups studied were comprised of physicians, midlevel providers, and pharmacists. A self-administered online survey was disseminated to participants. Seven major hospital formulary decision-making factors were identified in the scientific literature. Study participants were asked to respond to questions about each of the hospital formulary decision-making factors and to rank the various formulary decision-making factors from the factor deemed most important to the factor deemed least important. There are five major conclusions drawn from the study including three similarities and two significant differences among the prescriber groups and factors. Similarities include: (1) the factor "pharmacy staff's evaluation of medical evidence including formulary recommendations" was ranked highest for all three prescriber groups; (2) "evaluation of medications by expert physicians" was ranked second for physicians and midlevel providers while pharmacists ranked it third; and (3) the factor, "financial impact of the treatment to the patient" was fifth in terms of hospital formulary decision-making statement and ranking by all three prescriber groups. Two significant differences include: (1) for the hospital-formulary decision making statement, "I consider the number of patients affected by adding, removing, or modifying a drug on the formulary when making hospital medication formulary decisions," midlevel providers considered this factor of significantly greater importance than did physicians; and (2) for the ranked hospital formulary decision-making factor, "financial impact of treatment to the institution," pharmacists ranked this factor significantly higher than did physicians. This study contributes to a greater understanding of the three prescriber groups serving on a P&T committee. Also, the study contributes to the body of literature regarding decision-making processes in medicine and specifically factors impacting hospital formulary decision-making. Furthermore, this study has the potential to impact the operational guidelines for the P&T committee at the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center as well as other hospitals.