Which pharm. reference do you prefer & why?

  1. Tell me, which pharmacology reference do you like and why of these four or is there another reference you prefer and why?

    I am reviewing two alphabetized indices:
    1) Lippincott's "Nursing Drug Guide" and 2) Facts & Comparisons "A to Z Drug Facts";

    and, two drug references arranged by use/therapeutic category:
    3) "Nursing Drug Handbook" by Springhouse and 4) "Drug Facts & Comparisons Pocket Version."

    And I get to keep one of them. I'm leaning toward #4, but I'd like nurses' input. I'm a nursing student-to-be.

    The full reference of Facts & Comparisons, the notebook with drug information sheets that can be inserted and taken out, is beyond any of these; but, I'm asking as to a preference for a quick-look, carry-around book.

    By the way, is the full F&C notebook, the bible of nursing pharmacology information on the hospital floor?

    Last edit by Franca on Feb 15, '02
  2. Visit Franca profile page

    About Franca

    Joined: Jan '02; Posts: 30


  3. by   RNforLongTime
    I always buy the Nurses Drug Handbook put out by Springhouse. Even though my hospital buys each unit 6 copies every year, I like to have my own on hand! I also like Lippencott as I prefer their Alphabetical feature rather by drug class
  4. by   Franca
    Thank you, kaknurse.

    I liked the NDH too, and its alphabetical drug index at the back of it is helpful.

    I wish the binding of both the Springhouse NDH and the Lippincott NDG was such that the books would stay open instead of flipping closed fairly easily. But that's a small negative. The Facts & Comparison books will stay open when being used.
  5. by   Mary Dover
    I've always been partial to Mosby's Nursing Drug Reference book, but haven't purchased a new one in years, so hardly use it anymore. I received a Visor handheld computer for Christmas and downloaded ePocrates free - now talk about a FAST source of reference. The only thing - it seems more geared for MD's and doesn't have 'nursing implications', but you can constantly update it for free. I am finding that I enjoy it.
  6. by   nightingale
    I purchased the new "Blanchard and Loeb" refence book. I love it. It it large in size and print, stays open in one hand, and is user friendly. It has the standard generic alphabetization. It is the first reasonably priced drug refence book I have seen @ less then
    $ 20.00 on an online bookstore.

    Sometimes by researching books on the web to purchase you can also flip through some sample pages. I love this feature of looking before I buy.

  7. by   aimeee
    I like the Nursing Drug Handbook and I like Lippincott's too. We have a new Mosby's at the office and there have been a couple of drugs that weren't in it that I did find in my Lippincott's. I didn't like the organization by drug class at first, but now I prefer it. I always started by checking the index anyway.
  8. by   Franca
    This feedback is T-totally helpful as we say in the South! Thank you very much. Please keep it coming!

    Mary, I read a little bit about electronic references from links on a thread on the students' AllNurses.com forum (many thanks to Brandy and the other posters there). Here's the site for the "Introduction to Personalized Digital Assistants (PDAs)": http://www.nurse.net/clinical/pda/index.shtml that I picked up from the thread. It has a link called "Handheld Drug Reference Comparison" and ePocrates was preferred of the two compared. Also, I linked to ePocrates from the above site. Thanks for your feedback about "nursing implications" being needed in electronic software; I will include that also in my report as it might be helpful too.

    Anyone who has suggestions as to improvements to drug books and/or electronic software, please jump in. I appreciate you sharing what helps you in drug references (print and electronic), and what is unnecessary, and what needs to be added.

    :kiss (That's a new Smilie, isn't it? Thank you moderator(s) who thought of and added that one.)
    Last edit by Franca on Feb 19, '02