Dataset Information

Regulation Awareness and Experience of Additional Monitoring among Healthcare Professionals in Finland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Challenges in post-marketing adverse event reporting are generally recognized. To enhance reporting, the concept of additional monitoring was introduced in 2012. Additional monitoring aims to enhance reporting of adverse events (AE) for medicines for which the clinical evidence base is less well developed.

Purpose

The purpose was to get a deeper understanding of the underlying reasons why additional monitoring has not increased AE reporting as much as initially hoped. We examined how healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Finland perceive additional monitoring, why they do or do not report AEs more readily for these medicines and how they interact with patients treated with additionally monitored medicines.

Methods

An anonymous, open questionnaire was developed and made available online at the e-form portal of University of Helsinki. Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists were invited to complete the questionnaire via their respective trade or area unions. Content analysis of answers to open-ended questions was performed by two independent coders.

Results

Pharmacists have the best understanding about additional monitoring but at the same time do not recognize their role in enhancing monitoring. Only 40% of HCPs working with patients knows always or often if a specific medicine is additionally monitored. Half (53%) of HCPs do not tell or tell only rarely patients about additional monitoring. 18% of HCPs reported having received additional monitoring training whereas 29% had received general AE reporting training. AE reporting was more common among HCPs who had received training.

Conclusions

Additional monitoring awareness among HCPs and patients should be increased by organizing regular educational events and making additional monitoring more visible. Educational events should emphasize the significance additional monitoring has on patient safety and promote a reporting culture among HCPs.

SUBMITTER: Sandberg A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8622083 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesSepsis awareness and understanding are important aspects of prevention, recognition, and clinical management of sepsis. We conducted a scoping review to identify and map the literature related to sepsis awareness, general knowledge, and information-seeking behaviors with a goal to inform future sepsis research and knowledge translation campaigns.DesignScoping review.SettingUsing Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a systematic search on May 3, 2021, across four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Education Research Complete). Title/abstract and full-text screening was done in duplicate. One researcher extracted the data for each included article, and a second researcher checked data accuracy. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YX7AU ).SubjectsArticles related to sepsis awareness, knowledge, and information seeking behaviors among patients, public, and healthcare professionals.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 5,927 unique studies, 80 reported on patient ( n = 13/80;16.3%), public ( n = 15/80;18.8%), or healthcare professional (nurses, physicians, emergency medical technicians) ( n = 48/80; 60%) awareness and knowledge of sepsis. Healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis is high compared with patients/public. The proportion of patients/public who had heard of the term sepsis ranged from 2% (Japan) to 88.6% (Germany). The proportions of patients/public who correctly identified the definition of sepsis ranged from 4.2% (Singapore) to 92% (Sweden). The results from the included studies appear to suggest that patient/public awareness of sepsis gradually improved over time. We found that the definition of sepsis was inconsistent in the literature and that few studies reported on patient, public, or healthcare professional knowledge of sepsis risk factors. Most patient/public get their sepsis information from the internet, whereas healthcare professionals get it from their role in healthcare through job training or educational training.ConclusionsPatient, public, and healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis vary globally. Future research may benefit from a consistent definition as well as country-specific data to support targeted public awareness campaigns.

Project description:ObjectiveExplore children's and adolescents' (CADs') lived experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs).DesignScoping review methodology provided a six-step framework to, first, identify and organise existing evidence. Interpretive phenomenology provided methodological principles for, second, an interpretive synthesis of the life worlds of CADs receiving healthcare, as represented by verbatim accounts of their experiences.Data sourcesFive key databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Web of Science), from inception through to January 2019, reference lists, and opportunistically identified publications.Eligibility criteriaResearch articles containing direct first-person quotations by CADs (aged 0-18 years inclusive) describing how they experienced HCPs.Data extraction and synthesisTabulation of study characteristics, contextual information, and verbatim extraction of all 'relevant' (as defined above) direct quotations. Analysis of basic scope of the evidence base. The research team worked reflexively and collaboratively to interpret the qualitative data and construct a synthesis of children's experiences. To consolidate and elaborate the interpretation, we held two focus groups with inpatient CADs in a children's hospital.Results669 quotations from 99 studies described CADs' experiences of HCPs. Favourable experiences were of forming trusting relationships and being involved in healthcare discussions and decisions; less favourable experiences were of not relating to or being unable to trust HCPs and/or being excluded from conversations about them. HCPs fostered trusting relationships by being personable, wise, sincere and relatable. HCPs made CADs feel involved by including them in conversations, explaining medical information, and listening to CADs' wider needs and preferences.ConclusionThese findings strengthen the case for making CADs partners in healthcare despite their youth. We propose that a criterion for high-quality child-centred healthcare should be that HCPs communicate in ways that engender trust and involvement.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:National competent authorities (NCAs) use Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) to communicate new drug safety issues to healthcare professionals (HCPs). More knowledge is needed about the effectiveness of DHPCs and the extent to which they raise awareness of new safety issues among HCPs. OBJECTIVE:The objective was to assess and compare general practitioners' (GPs'), cardiologists', and pharmacists' familiarity with DHPCs as communication tools, their awareness of specific drug safety issues, and the sources through which they had become aware of the specific issues. METHODS:GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists from nine European countries (Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) completed a web-based survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with DHPCs in general and their awareness of safety issues that had recently been communicated and involved the following drugs: combined hormonal contraceptives, diclofenac, valproate, and ivabradine. Those HCPs who were aware of the specific safety issues were subsequently asked to indicate the source through which they had become aware of them. Differences between professions in familiarity with DHPCs and awareness were tested using a Pearson ?2 test per country and post hoc Pearson ?2 tests in the case of statistically significant differences. RESULTS:Of the 3288 included respondents, 54% were GPs, 40% were pharmacists, and 7% were cardiologists. The number of respondents ranged from 67 in Denmark to 916 in Spain. Most respondents (92%) were familiar with DHPCs, with one significant difference between the professions: pharmacists were more familiar than GPs in Italy (99 vs 90%, P = 0.004). GPs' awareness ranged from 96% for the diclofenac issue to 70% for the ivabradine issue. A similar pattern was shown for pharmacists (91% aware of the diclofenac issue to 66% of the ivabradine issue). Cardiologists' awareness ranged from 91% for the ivabradine issue to 34% for the valproate issue. Overall, DHPCs were a common source through which GPs (range: 45% of those aware of the contraceptives issue to 60% of those aware of the valproate issue), cardiologists (range: 33% for the contraceptives issue to 61% for the valproate issue), and pharmacists (range: 41% for the contraceptives issue to 51% for the ivabradine issue) had become aware of the specific safety issues, followed by information on websites or in newsletters. CONCLUSIONS:GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists were to a similar extent (highly) familiar with DHPCs, but they differed in awareness levels of specific safety issues. Cardiologists were less aware of safety issues associated with non-cardiology drugs even if these had cardiovascular safety concerns. This implies that additional strategies may be needed to reach specialists when communicating safety issues regarding drugs outside their therapeutic area but with risks related to their field of specialisation. DHPCs were an important source for the different professions to become aware of specific safety issues, but other sources were also often used. NCAs should consider the use of a range of sources when communicating important safety issues to HCPs.

Project description:BackgroundAdditional risk minimization measures (aRMMs) are required for some pharmaceutical products when routine risk minimization measures (i.e., product labeling) are deemed insufficient. Measures often include educational materials, such as paper brochures, leaflets, and/or alert cards that provide information to healthcare professionals and patients on the key risks associated with a product and risk minimization actions to take should particular signs or symptoms arise. Paper-based educational aRMMs have several limitations. They do not present information in an interactive manner, and their update and distribution can be costly and often complex. Measuring how effective they are in achieving their aims can also be difficult. Digital methods offer design and delivery flexibility, easier updating processes, opportunities to increase engagement with important information, as well possibilities for tracking distribution, receipt, and potentially understanding of the materials. Pharmaceutical companies have started to look to digital methods as an option for educational aRMMs, alongside paper materials.ObjectivesResearch into healthcare professionals and patient needs and preferences, as well as the general acceptability of digital educational options is needed to establish a baseline. This was an exploratory study intended to provide initial insights on the acceptability of digital aRMMs and to inform future research directions.MethodsDigital concepts for educational aRMMs, one for healthcare professionals and one for patients, were evaluated with 30 healthcare professionals and 20 patients in six countries through 1:1 Zoom calls, with responses recorded in a structured Qualtrics-based survey. Criteria for selecting the six countries included local familiarity with aRMMs as well as interest in and capability to deliver a potential digital aRMM program by the sponsoring company's affiliate teams. Of the healthcare professionals, 19 were rheumatologists and 11 were dermatologists. 16 patients had rheumatologic (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis) conditions and four had atopic dermatitis. These conditions were chosen as they aligned to potential therapeutic areas where the sponsoring company may have the opportunity to use a digital aRMM. Participants were given an overview of the concept as well as the opportunity to interact with it directly via the "control screen" function in Zoom before questions were posed.ResultsThe results demonstrated that the majority of healthcare professionals (87%) and all patients interviewed would prefer website-based or app-based delivery, respectively, of aRMM information instead of, or alongside traditional paper-based approaches, with only 13% of healthcare professionals and no patients expressing a preference for paper-only communication.ConclusionsGiven new options offered by digital technology, its widespread use in many fields, and the importance of patient safety as a topic, there is an imperative for pharmaceutical companies and regulators to work together to establish a way forward for the use of digital options for aRMMs. This study is limited in its generalizability but offers some ideas for future research directions.

Project description:To ensure quality of care delivery clinical supervision has been implemented in health services. While clinical supervision of health professionals has been shown to improve patient safety, its effect on other dimensions of quality of care is unknown. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine whether clinical supervision of health professionals improves effectiveness of care and patient experience.Databases MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and AMED were searched from earliest date available. Additional studies were identified by searching of reference lists and citation tracking. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each study was rated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Data were extracted on effectiveness of care (process of care and patient health outcomes) and patient experience.Seventeen studies across multiple health professions (medical (n?=?4), nursing (n?=?7), allied health (n?=?2) and combination of nursing, medical and/or allied health (n?=?4)) met the inclusion criteria. The clinical heterogeneity of the included studies precluded meta-analysis. Twelve of 14 studies investigating 38,483 episodes of care found that clinical supervision improved the process of care. This effect was most predominant in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and African health settings. Three of six studies investigating 1756 patients found that clinical supervision improved patient health outcomes, namely neurological recovery post cardiopulmonary resuscitation (n?=?1) and psychological symptom severity (n?=?2). None of three studies investigating 1856 patients found that clinical supervision had an effect on patient experience.Clinical supervision of health professionals is associated with effectiveness of care. The review found significant improvement in the process of care that may improve compliance with processes that are associated with enhanced patient health outcomes. While few studies found a direct effect on patient health outcomes, when provided to mental health professionals clinical supervision may be associated with a reduction in psychological symptoms of patients diagnosed with a mental illness. There was no association found between clinical supervision and the patient experience.CRD42015029643 .