The potential of training specialist oncology nurses in real-life reporting of adverse drug reactions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Reumerman M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8440292 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report documentation was assessed with the "Clinical Documentation tool to assess Individual Case Safety Reports" (ClinDoc). The relevance of the reports was evaluated in terms of ADR seriousness, the listing for additional monitoring of the drug by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and lack of labelling information about the ADR. Nurses' opinions of the assignment were evaluated using an E-survey. Thirty-three ADRs were reported, 32 (97%) of which were well documented according to ClinDoc. Thirteen ADRs (39%) were "serious" according to CIOMS criteria. In five cases (15%), the suspect drugs were listed for additional monitoring by EMA and in seven cases (21%), the ADR was not mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Twenty-five (78.1%) of the 32 enrolled nurses completed the E-survey. Most were > 45 years of age (68%), female (92%) and had extensive clinical experience (6-33 years). All agreed or completely agreed that the reporting assignment was useful, that it fitted in daily practice and that it increased their attention for medication/patient safety. A large majority (84.0%) agreed the assignment changed how they dealt with ADRs. Specialist oncology nurses are capable of reporting ADRs, and they considered the assignment useful. The assignment yielded valuable, relevant, and well-documented ADR reports for pharmacovigilance practice.
| S-EPMC5748417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:To develop a systematic generic method of enabling patients to report symptoms which they believe to be due to a particular prescribed drug. METHODS:A piloted body system-based questionnaire was distributed to patients registered with 79 medical practices in Grampian prescribed one of nine recently marketed 'black triangle' drugs. These comprised four antidepressants, three antiepileptics and two analgesics. This requested respondents to identify any symptoms experienced over the previous year which they thought could be due to the 'black triangle' drug they had used. A sample of medical records was examined to compare symptoms recorded with those reported by patients. A classification system was developed for the study to enable the assessment of symptoms reported for their potential relationship to patients' drug therapy. All symptoms reported were classified, taking into account information provided by patients on their concomitant drugs and diseases. A specialist pharmacist independently re-classified a sample of the symptoms to validate the process. RESULTS:A 36.3% response rate was obtained (837/2307) with 742 respondents (88.6%) reporting at least one symptom. The median per patient was 6.0 (range 0--71), with almost half (406, 48.5%) reporting fewer than five symptoms. Most symptoms (71.0%) were classified as being probably or possibly related to the drugs studied. Agreement between researcher and specialist on the classification of 75.3% of 716 symptoms was obtained (Kappa=0.563). Responses from patients prescribed antidepressant drugs were more likely to include symptoms potentially caused by these drugs (74.5% of all symptoms reported) than those from patients prescribed analgesics (67.4%) or antiepileptics (65.1%, chi2 = 23.858, d.f. = 2, P < 0.001). Patients reporting large numbers of symptoms were more likely to report some which were classed as unlikely to be an ADR or unattributable (chi2 = 80.587, d.f. = 3, P < 0.001). Of the 742 reporting symptoms in questionnaires, 402 (54.2%) claimed to have reported some or all of these to their doctor. Only 162 (22.6%) of 716 patient-reported symptoms were documented in the primary care medical records of 103 patients prescribed tramadol or venlafaxine. CONCLUSIONS:Respondents were clearly willing to report symptoms, the majority of which were classed as possibly/probably related to the drugs studied. The results suggest that patients do not report all symptoms they suspect to be ADRs to their GP and that GPs do not record all symptoms which may be reported to them. The method could help to identify problems which patients perceive as being related to their drug therapy and contribute to increased ADR reporting.
| S-EPMC1874308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAttitudes of healthcare professionals regarding spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Japan are not well known, and Japan's unique system of surveillance, called early post-marketing phase vigilance (EPPV), may affect these reporting attitudes. Our objectives were to describe potential effects of EPPV and to test whether ADR seriousness, prominence, and frequency are related to changes in reporting over time.MethodsA manufacturer's database of spontaneous ADR reports was used to extract data from individual case safety reports for 5 drugs subject to EPPV. The trend of reporting and the time lag between ADR onset and reporting to the manufacturer were examined. The following indices for ADRs occurring with each drug were calculated and analyzed to assess reporting trends: Serious:Non-serious ratio, High prominence:Low prominence ratio, and High frequency:Low frequency ratio.ResultsFor all 5 drugs, the time lag between ADR onset and reporting to the manufacturer was shorter in the EPPV period than in the post-EPPV period. All drugs showed higher Serious:Non-serious ratios in the post-EPPV period. No specific patterns were observed for the High prominence:Low prominence ratio. The High frequency:Low frequency ratio for peginterferon alpha-2a and sevelamer hydrochloride decreased steadily throughout the study period.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals may be more likely to report serious ADRs than to report non-serious ADRs, but the effect of event prominence on reporting trends is still unclear. Factors associated with ADR reporting attitude in Japan might be different from those in other countries because of EPPV and the involvement of medical representatives in the spontaneous reporting process. Pharmacovigilance specialists should therefore be cautious when comparing data between different time periods or different countries. Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanism of spontaneous ADR reporting in Japan.
| S-EPMC4416713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth Canada relies on health professionals to voluntarily report adverse reactions to the Canada Vigilance Program. Current rates of reporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are inadequate to detect important safety issues.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of pharmacy student facilitation of ADR reporting by pharmacists at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Canada.MethodsThe intervention of interest, implemented at one campus of the hospital, was facilitation of ADR reporting by pharmacy students. The students received training on how to submit ADR reports and presented information sessions on the topic to hospital pharmacists; the pharmacists were then encouraged to report ADRs to a designated student for formal reporting. Frequency of reporting by pharmacists at the intervention campus was compared with reporting at a control campus of the same hospital. Data were collected prospectively over a 6-month pilot period, starting in April 2015.ResultsDuring the pilot period, 27 ADR reports were submitted at the intervention campus, and 3 reports at the control campus. All student participants strongly agreed that they would recommend that responsibility for submitting ADR reports to the Canada Vigilance Program remain with pharmacy students during future rotations.ConclusionsAvailability of a pharmacy student to facilitate reporting of ADRs may increase the frequency of ADR reporting and could alleviate pharmacist workload; this activity is also a potentially valuable learning experience for students.
| S-EPMC5587040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) form an essential component of both drug safety monitoring and patient safety initiatives. Pharmacists are well positioned to report ADRs, but many barriers exist to their doing so. Over the past decade, substantial changes have occurred with regard to drug regulations and medication safety initiatives, and it is possible that knowledge-based interventions may be needed to enhance ADR reporting by pharmacists.ObjectiveTo determine whether ADR reporting behaviours of pharmacists improved after release of a revised policy on the reporting of medication incidents.MethodsA telephone survey was administered to pharmacists practising in the Canadian Forces Health Services Group. Self-reported behaviours and perceived barriers related to ADR reporting were compared before and 3 months after the updated policy was released. Accuracy in participants' self-assessed ADR reporting was evaluated using independently derived workload statistics.ResultsDuring the second survey phase (after release of the revised policy), a greater proportion of respondents reported awareness of institutional policies on ADR reporting and declared that they were able to complete all necessary ADR reports during their assigned work hours. However, the number of ADR reports submitted did not increase. Participants' recall of their ADR reporting behaviour was corroborated by workload data. During the second survey phase, there was a noticeable reduction in the number of free-form comments mentioning lack of staff as a barrier to ADR reporting.ConclusionsRelease of a more comprehensive policy was not associated with an increase in the number of ADR reports generated by pharmacists in the study setting. Interventions to strengthen the organization's work processes for detection of ADRs and submission of individual ADR reports should be strongly considered, to reinforce and enhance existing ADR reporting behaviours among pharmacists.
| S-EPMC6118825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unintended consequences of medication use and may result in hospitalizations or deaths. Timely reporting of ADRs to regulators is essential for drug monitoring, research, and maintaining patient safety, but it has not been standardized in Australia.ObjectiveWe sought to explore the ways that ADRs are monitored or reported in Australia. We reviewed how consumers and health care professionals participate in ADR monitoring and reporting.MethodsThe Arksey and O'Malley framework provided a methodology to sort the data according to key themes and issues. Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Computer & Applied Sciences Complete databases were used to extract articles published from 2010 to 2021. Two reviewers screened the papers for eligibility, extracted key data, and provided descriptive analysis of the data.ResultsSeven articles met the inclusion criteria. The Adverse Medicine Events Line (telephone reporting service) was introduced in 2003 to support consumer reporting of ADRs; however, only 10.4% of consumers were aware of ADR reporting schemes. Consumers who experience side effects were more likely to report ADRs to their doctors or pharmacists than to the drug manufacturer. The documentation of ADR reports in hospital electronic health records showed that nurses and pharmacists were significantly less likely than doctors to omit the description of the drug reaction, and pharmacists were significantly more likely to enter the correct classification of the drug reaction than doctors. Review and analysis of all ADR reports submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration highlighted a decline in physician contribution from 28% of ADR reporting in 2003 to 4% in 2016; however, within this same time period, hospital and community pharmacists were a major source of ADR reporting (ie, 16%). In 2014, there was an increase in ADR reporting by community pharmacists following the introduction of the GuildLink ADR web-based reporting system; however, a year later, the reporting levels dropped. In 2018, the Therapeutic Goods Administration introduced a black triangle scheme on the packaging of newly approved medicines, to remind and encourage ADR reporting on new medicines, but this was only marginally successful at increasing the quantity of ADR reports.ConclusionsDespite the existence of national and international guidelines for ADR reporting and management, there is substantial interinstitutional variability in the standards of ADR reporting among individual health care facilities. There is room for increased ADR reporting rates among consumers and health care professionals. A thorough assessment of the barriers and enablers to ADR reporting at the primary health care institutional levels is essential. Interventions to increase ADR reporting, for example, the black triangle scheme (alert or awareness) or GuildLink (digital health), have only had marginal effects and may benefit from further improvement revisions and awareness programs.
| S-EPMC9887513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional's knowledge and attitudes to adverse drug reaction (ADR) and ADR reporting play vital role to report any cases of ADR. Positive attitudes may favour ADR reporting by healthcare professionals. This study was aimed to investigate the attitudes towards and ways to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals working at four Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres (RPCs) of Nepal. METHODS: A cross sectional study was done by survey using a self-administered structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 450 healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 74.0%. There were 74.8% of healthcare professionals who had seen patient experiencing an ADR; however, only 20.1% had reported. Reporting form not available (48.1%) and other colleagues not reporting ADR cases (46.9%) would significantly discourage the ADR reporting among healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. Healthcare professionals perceived that seriousness of the reaction (75.6%); unusual reaction (64.6%); reaction to new product (71.2%); new reaction to existing product (70.2%); and confidence in diagnosis of ADR (60.8%) were important factors on the decision to report ADR. Awareness among healthcare professionals (85.9%), training (76.0%), collaboration (67.0%), and involve pharmacist for ADR reporting (63.1%) were mostly recognized ways to improve reporting. Regular newsletter on current awareness in drug safety (71.2%), information on new ADR (65.8%), and international drug safety information (64.0%) were the identified feedbacks they would like to receive from the Nepal pharmacovigilance programme. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals working at four RPCs of Nepal have positive attitudes towards ADR reporting. Awareness among healthcare professionals, training and collaboration would likely improve reporting provided they would receive appropriate feedback from the national pharamcovigilance programme.
| S-EPMC3599543 | biostudies-other
Project description:Introduction: The panorama of drug-induced ototoxicity has widened in the last decades; moreover, post-marketing data are necessary to gain a better insight on ototoxic adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The aim of this study was to perform an analysis of ADR reports describing drug-induced ototoxicity from the Italian spontaneous reporting system (SRS). Methods: As a measure of disproportionality, we calculated the reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a case/non-case methodology. Cases were all suspected ADR reports regarding drug-induced ototoxicity collected into the Italian SRS from 2001 to 2017. Non-cases included all other ADRs reported in the same period. Results: Of 325,980 reports, 652 included at least one ototoxic ADR, compared with 325,328 non-cases. Statistically significant adjusted RORs were found for drugs for cardiovascular disorders, urologicals, teriparatide, amikacin, prulifloxacin, rifampicin and isoniazid, cisplatin, hormone antagonists, tacrolimus, pomalidomide, tramadol, and antidepressants. Significant adjusted RORs in relation to tinnitus were also observed for doxazosin (ROR 5.55, 95% CI 2.06-14.93), bisoprolol (4.28, 1.59-11.53), nebivolol (8.06, 3.32-19.56), ramipril (3.96, 2.17-7.23), irbesartan (19.60, 9.19-41.80), betamethasone (4.01, 1.28-12.52), moxifloxacin (4.56, 1.71-12.34), ethambutol (12.25, 3.89-38.57), efavirenz (16.82, 5.34-52.96), sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (5.95, 1.90-18.61), etoposide (7.09, 2.63-19.12), abatacept (6.51, 2.42-17.53), indometacin (6.30, 2.02-19.72), etoricoxib (5.00, 2.23-11.23), tapentadol (4.37, 1.09-17.62), and timolol combinations (23.29, 9.53-56.95). Moreover, significant adjusted RORs for hypoacusis regarded clarithromycin (3.95, 1.86-8.40), azithromycin (10.23, 5.03-20.79), vancomycin (6.72, 2.14-21.11), methotrexate (3.13, 1.00-9.81), pemetrexed (4.38, 1.40-13.76), vincristine (5.93, 1.88-18.70), vinorelbine (21.60, 8.83-52.82), paclitaxel (2.34, 1.03-5.30), rituximab (3.20, 1.19-8.63), interferon alfa-2b (17.44, 8.56-35.53), thalidomide (16.92, 6.92-41.38), and deferasirox (41.06, 20.07-84.01). Conclusions: This study is largely consistent with results from literature. Nevertheless, propafenone, antituberculars, hormone antagonists, teriparatide, tramadol, and pomalidomide are unknown for being ototoxic. Hypoacusis after the use of vinorelbine, methotrexate, and pemetrexed is unexpected, such as tinnitus related with etoposide, nebivolol, betamethasone, abatacept, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, and tapentadol, but these considerations require further investigation to better define the risk due to the paucity of data. Moreover, physicians should be aware of the clinical significance of ototoxicity and be conscious about the importance of their contribution to spontaneous reporting.
| S-EPMC6791930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo identify the prevalence and preventability of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in an emergency ward setting in a tertiary hospital in Sweden and to what extent the detected ADRs were reported to the Medical Product Agency (MPA).MethodsIn this prospective cross sectional observational study, 706 patients admitted to one of the Emergency Wards, at the Karolinska University Hospital in Solna, Stockholm during September 2008 -September 2009, were included. The electronic patient records were reviewed for patients' demographic parameters, prevalence of possible ADRs and assessment of their preventability. In addition, the extent of formal and required ADR reporting to national registers was studied.ResultsApproximately 40 percent of the patient population had at least one possible ADR (n = 284). In the multivariable regression model, age and number of drugs were significantly associated with risk of presenting with an ADR (p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively). Sex was not identified as a significant predictor of ADRs (p = 0.27). The most common ADRs were cardiovascular, followed by electrolyte disturbances, and hemorrhage. In 18 percent of the patient population ADRs were the reason for admission or had contributed to admission and 24% of these ADRs were assessed as preventable. The under-reporting of ADRs to the MPA was 99%.ConclusionsADRs are common in Emergency Medicine in tertiary care in Sweden, but under-reporting of ADRs is substantial. The most frequent ADRs are caused by cardiovascular drugs, and significantly associated with age and number of drugs. However, only a minority of the detected serious ADRs contributing to admission could have been avoided by increased risk awareness.
| S-EPMC5021364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act will eventually require institutions to report all serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although the proposed regulations do not yet define what will need to be reported and by whom. Knowledge about the occurrence of serious ADRs in the hospital setting is needed to optimize the effectiveness of reporting and to determine the potential implications of mandatory reporting. Objectives:To quantify and characterize suspected serious ADRs in patients admitted to a general medicine service, to assess the likelihood of causality, and to determine inter-rater agreement for identification of ADRs and assessment of their likelihood. Methods:This prospective observational study involved 60 consecutive patients admitted to a general medicine service at a tertiary care teaching centre starting on March 28, 2016. The primary outcome was the number of serious ADRs, defined by Health Canada as ADRs that result in hospital admission, congenital malformation, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or death; that are life-threatening; or that require significant intervention to prevent one of these outcomes. Medical records were reviewed independently by pairs of pharmacists for serious ADRs, and the likelihood of causality was assessed using the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre system. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using the kappa score, and disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. Results:Twenty-three serious ADRs occurred in the sample of 60 patients. The proportion of patients experiencing a serious ADR that contributed to the original hospital admission was 19/60 (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 20%-43%), and 4 patients (7%, 95% CI 0%-13%) experienced a serious ADR during their hospital stay. Inter-rater agreement for occurrence of serious ADRs was moderate (kappa 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.76). Conclusion:Reportable serious ADRs were common among patients admitted to a general medicine service. Canadian hospitals would face difficulties reporting all serious ADRs because of the frequency of their occurrence and the subjectivity of their identification.
| S-EPMC6209500 | biostudies-other