中文摘要：

瞄准：根据当前的实践指南从华东与煽动性的肠疾病(IBD ) 为病人基础队的一所医院调查照顾的质量。方法：回顾的评论被进行，包含有进入先生跑跑杂木林医院的 IBD 的 177 个病人，药的学院，在 2000 年 6 月和 2006 年 6 月之间的浙江大学。关于人口统计、临床的特征以及口头的 aminosalisylates 的医药治疗包括使用的数据，热门治疗，皮质甾代理人，免疫调节代理人(例如 azathioprine ) 在录取和门诊病人诊所，访问被分析。结果：177 个合格病人的一个总数在这研究被评估，包括有 Crohn 的疾病(CD ) 的 71 个病人并且 106 与 ulcerative (UC ) 。都是有在基线的活跃疾病的汉国籍汉语。当时，有 ulcerative 的所有 106 个病人收到了 aminosalisylate 的最佳的剂量 68 中的 27 个(39.7%) 与忠实的 i 或结肠的 CD 一起的病人收到了 aminosalisylate 的非最优的剂量。aminosalisylate 的非最优的剂量的发生仅仅在有小肠参与的 CD 病人是显著地更高的(52.8% 对 25.0% ， P = 0.019 ) 。31 (54.4%) 有活跃远侧或左边的 ulcerative 的病人收到了热门治疗，并且患严重的煽动性的肠疾病的 27.8% 病人没收到口头或静脉内的类固醇治疗。在 thiopurine 为被显示的 51 个病人之中，(19.6%) 仅仅， 10 收到了免疫调节代理人，并且非常， 8 个病人的一半没有尝试收到了 azathiopurine 的非最优的剂量增加它的剂量。结论：为 IBD 病人的照顾的质量能进一步被改进。氨基的水杨酸盐的非最优的剂量与 CD 在病人的治疗被使用，特别在那些，小肠仅仅包含了。热门 mesalazine 不充分地与远侧或左边的大肠炎在病人被使用。口头或静脉内的类固醇治疗没与严重 IBD 在一些病人被使用。免疫的使用调节的药被限制。更大的未来的研究被需要与 IBD 为病人调查照顾的质量建立我们的自己的基于证据的指南。

英文摘要：

AIM： To investigate the quality of care for a hospital based-cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease （IBD） from East China according to the current practice guidelines, METHODS： A retrospective review was conducted, involving 177 patients with IBD admitted to Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University between June 2000 and June 2006. Data regarding demographic and clinical characteristics as well as medical therapy including use of oral aminosalisylates, topical therapy, corticosteroid agents, immunomodulatory agents （such as azathioprine） at admission and outpatient clinic visit were analyzed. RESULTS： A total of 177 eligible patients were evaluated in this study, including 71 patients with Crohn＇s disease （CD） and 106 with ulcerative colitis （UC）. All were the Han nationality Chinese with active disease at baseline. All the 106 patients with ulcerative colitis received optimal doses of aminosalisylate while 27 of 68 （39.7%） patients with ileal or colonic CD received the suboptimal doses of aminosalisylate. The incidence of suboptimal dose of aminosalisylate was significantly higher in CD patients with small intestine involvement only （52.8% vs 25.0%, P = 0.019）. Thirty-one （54.4%） patients with active distal or left-sided ulcerative colitis received topical therapy, and 27.8% of patients suffering from severe inflammatory bowel disease did not receive oral or intravenous steroid therapy. Among the 51 patients for whom thiopurine was indicated, only 10 （19.6%） received immunomodulatory agents, and more thanhalf of the 8 patients received a suboptimal dose of azathiopurine with no attempt to increase its dosage. CONCLUSION： The quality of care for IBD patients can be further improved. A suboptimal dose of aminosalicylate is used in treatment of patients with CD, especially in those with small intestine involved only. Topical mesalazine is inadequately used in patients with distal or left-sided colitis. Oral or intravenous steroid therap