Dataset Information

Why hospital-based healthcare professionals do not report adverse drug reactions: a mixed methods study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Adverse drug reaction (ADR) underreporting is highly prevalent across the world. This study aimed to identify factors associated with ADR reporting and map these to a behavioural change framework to help inform future interventions designed to improve ADR underreporting.

Methods

A mixed methods survey was distributed to healthcare professionals at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Quantitative data was analysed using logistic regression to identify factors that predict ADR reporting. Qualitative data was evaluated using content analysis. These were then integrated and mapped to the 14 domains within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify target areas relevant for improving ADR reporting.

Results

One hundred thirty-three healthcare professionals completed the survey. Knowing how to report ADRs (OR 4.56, 95%CI 1.95-10.7), having been trained on ADR reporting (OR 2.72, 95%CI 1.29-5.77), and encountering ADRs as part of clinical practice (OR 10.3, 95%CI 3.59-29.4) were significant predictors of reporting an ADR. Content analysis identified three categories: modifying the ADR reporting process, enabling clinicians to report ADRs, and creating a positive ADR reporting culture. After data integration, the three target TDF domains were knowledge, environmental context/resources, and beliefs about consequences.

Conclusion

Future interventions designed to improve ADR reporting should address these target domains to instigate behaviour change in healthcare professionals' reporting of ADRs.

SUBMITTER: Li R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9043508 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterventions to improve personalised and holistic care delivery by healthcare professionals are more likely to be effective if they target the factors influencing specific behaviours. This study reports on the development and testing of a questionnaire to identify perspectives of healthcare professionals' personalised and holistic care behaviours based on the Theoretical Domains Framework.MethodsThe study was conducted in public health services in Victoria, Australia. The questionnaire was developed and pilot-tested with behaviour change researchers and healthcare professionals. Doctors, nurses and midwives were recruited via notices and email invitations from Safer Care Victoria's website and mailing lists of healthcare professionals and invited to completed the questionnaire online (hosted on Qualtrics). Health services administrators and allied health professionals were excluded from the study. Confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to generate the model of best fit and group differences were tested using univariate tests.ResultsOne hundred and four healthcare professionals from public health services in Victoria, Australia, completed the 39-item questionnaire focusing on specific personalised and holistic care behaviours. The final model consisted of 13 factors and 39 items, and CFA produced an acceptable fit, as well as adequate levels of discriminant validity and internal consistency (α = 0.60 to 0.84). Seven domains, "social influence", "motivation & goals", "environmental context and resources', "skills", 'beliefs about consequences", "behaviour regulation" and "nature of behaviour" were identified. Significant differences in the factors influencing these behaviours were found in groups with different years of experience and role seniority. These findings suggest that future interventions need to be targeted to specific groups.ConclusionThis study identified the specific behaviours and the factors associated with performance of personalised and holistic care among healthcare professionals. The findings suggest several interventions and policy functions may be taken to improve personalised and holistic care.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe demand for an eHealth-ready and adaptable workforce is placing increasing pressure on universities to deliver eHealth education. At present, eHealth education is largely focused on components of eHealth rather than considering a curriculum-wide approach.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a framework that could be used to guide health curriculum design based on current evidence, and stakeholder perceptions of eHealth capabilities expected of tertiary health graduates.MethodsA 3-phase, mixed-methods approach incorporated the results of a literature review, focus groups, and a Delphi process to develop a framework of eHealth capability statements.ResultsParticipants (N=39) with expertise or experience in eHealth education, practice, or policy provided feedback on the proposed framework, and following the fourth iteration of this process, consensus was achieved. The final framework consisted of 4 higher-level capability statements that describe the learning outcomes expected of university graduates across the domains of (1) digital health technologies, systems, and policies; (2) clinical practice; (3) data analysis and knowledge creation; and (4) technology implementation and codesign. Across the capability statements are 40 performance cues that provide examples of how these capabilities might be demonstrated.ConclusionsThe results of this study inform a cross-faculty eHealth curriculum that aligns with workforce expectations. There is a need for educational curriculum to reinforce existing eHealth capabilities, adapt existing capabilities to make them transferable to novel eHealth contexts, and introduce new learning opportunities for interactions with technologies within education and practice encounters. As such, the capability framework developed may assist in the application of eHealth by emerging and existing health care professionals. Future research needs to explore the potential for integration of findings into workforce development programs.

Project description:The 'Sepsis 6', a care bundle of basic, but vital, measures (e.g. intravenous fluid, antibiotics) has been implemented to improve sepsis treatment. However, uptake has been variable. Tools from behavioral sciences, such as the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) may be used to understand and address such implementation issues. This study used a behavioral science approach to identify barriers and facilitators towards Sepsis Six implementation at a case study hospital.Semi-structured interviews based on the TDF were conducted with a sample group of consultants, junior doctors and nurses from Emergency Department, Medical and Surgical Admissions, to explore barriers/facilitators to Sepsis Six performance. Transcripts were analyzed following the combined principles of content and framework analysis. Emerging themes informed a questionnaire to explore generalizability and importance across a sample of 261 stakeholders. Median importance and agreement ratings for each theme were calculated overall and for each role and clinical area. These were used to identify important barriers and important facilitators as targets for performance improvement.No new belief statements were discovered and data saturation was deemed achieved after 10 interviews. 1699 utterances were coded into 64 belief statements, then collated into a 51-item questionnaire. 113 questionnaire responses were obtained (44.3% response rate). Important barriers included insufficient audit and feedback, poor teamwork and communication, concerns about using the Sepsis Six in certain patients, insufficient training, and resource concerns. Facilitators included confidence in knowledge and skills, beliefs in overall benefits of the bundle, beliefs that identification and management of septic patients fell within everyone's role, and that regular use of the bundle made it easier to remember. Some beliefs were applicable for the entire group, others were specific to particular staff groups.A range of barriers and facilitators towards Sepsis Six performance across different staff groups were systematically identified using a theoretically-informed approach. This can inform development of targeted performance improvement interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand multidisciplinary team healthcare professionals' perceptions of current and optimal provision of acute rehabilitation, perceived facilitators and barriers to implementation, and their implications for patient recovery, using hip fracture as an example.MethodsA qualitative design was adopted using semi-structured telephone interviews with 20 members of the acute multidisciplinary healthcare team (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, physicians, nurses) working on orthopaedic wards at 15 different hospitals across the UK. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised, and then thematically analysed drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework to enhance our understanding of the findings.ResultsWe identified four themes: conceptualising a model of rehabilitative practice, which reflected the perceived variability of rehabilitation models, along with facilitators and common patient and organisational barriers for optimal rehabilitation; competing professional and organisational goals, which highlighted the reported incompatibility between organisational goals and person-centred care shaping rehabilitation practices, particularly for more vulnerable patients; engaging teams in collaborative practice, which related to the expressed need to work well with all members of the multidisciplinary team to achieve the same person-centred goals and share rehabilitation practices; and engaging patients and their carers, highlighting the importance of their involvement to achieve a holistic and collaborative approach to rehabilitation in the acute setting. Barriers and facilitators within themes were underpinned by the lack or presence of adequate ways of communicating with patients, carers, and multidisciplinary team members; resources (e.g. equipment, staffing, group classes), and support from people in leadership positions such as management and senior staff.ConclusionsCornerstones of optimal acute rehabilitation are effective communication and collaborative practices between the multidisciplinary team, patients and carers. Supportive management and leadership are central to optimise these processes. Organisational constraints are the most commonly perceived barrier to delivering effective rehabilitation in hospital settings, which exacerbate silo working and limited patient engagement.

Project description:BackgroundLack of adequate detail compromises analysis of reported suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We investigated how comprehensively Ugandan healthcare professionals (HCPs) described their most recent previous-month suspected ADR, and determined the characteristics of HCPs who provided comprehensive ADR descriptions. We also identified rare, serious, and unanticipated suspected ADR descriptions with medication safety-alerting potential.MethodsDuring 2012/13, this survey was conducted in purposively selected Ugandan health facilities (public/private) including the national referral and six regional referral hospitals representative of all regions. District hospitals, health centres II to IV, and private health facilities in the catchment areas of the regional referral hospitals were conveniently selected. Healthcare professionals involved in prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, and administration of medications were approached and invited to self-complete a questionnaire on ADR reporting. Two-thirds of issued questionnaires (1,345/2,000) were returned.ResultsNinety per cent (241/268) of HCPs who suspected ADRs in the previous month provided information on five higher-level descriptors as follows: body site (206), drug class (203), route of administration (127), patient age (133), and ADR severity (128). Comprehensiveness (explicit provision of at least four higher-level descriptors) was achieved by at least two-fifths (46%, 124/268) of HCPs. Received descriptions were more likely to be comprehensive from HCPs in private health facilities, regions other than central, and those not involved in teaching medical students. Overall, 106 serious and 51 rare previous-month suspected ADRs were described. The commonest serious and rare ADR was Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS); mostly associated with oral nevirapine or cotrimoxazole, but haemoptysis after diclofenac analgesia and paralysis after quinine injection were also described.ConclusionSurveyed Ugandan HCPs who had suspected at least one ADR in the previous month competently provided comprehensive ADR descriptions: more, indeed, than are received per annum nationally. Properly analyzed, and with local feed-back, voluntary ADR reports by HCPs could be an essential alerting tool for identifying rare and serious suspected ADRs in Uganda.

Project description:ObjectivesManual therapy in infants is embedded in Dutch healthcare despite inconsistent evidence and ongoing debate about its safety and merits. This study examines decision-making in manual therapy in infants and explores parents' and healthcare professionals' perspectives on this treatment approach.MethodsThis mixed-methods study consisted of an online survey among manual physiotherapists and paediatric physiotherapists exploring decision-making on manual therapy in infants and interprofessional collaboration. These data prompted further exploration and were combined with data collected with semi-structured interviews exploring parents' and healthcare professionals' perspectives. Interviews were analysed using an inductive content analysis approach.Results607 manual physiotherapists and 388 paediatric physiotherapists completed the online survey; 45% and 95% indicated they treat infants, respectively. Collaboration was reported by 46% of manual physiotherapists and 64% of paediatric physiotherapists for postural asymmetry, positional preference, upper cervical dysfunction, excessive crying, anxiety or restlessness. Reasons to not treat or collaborate were: limited professional competence, practice policy, not perceiving added value, lack of evidence and fear of complications. Analysis of interviews with 7 parents, 9 manual physiotherapists, 7 paediatric physiotherapists, 5 paediatricians and 2 maternity nurses revealed that knowledge and beliefs, professional norms, interpersonal relation, treatment experiences and emotions of parents influenced attitudes and decision-making towards choosing for manual therapy in infants.ConclusionParents' and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards manual therapy in infants can be divided as 'in favour' or 'against'. Those who experienced a good interpersonal relation with a manual physiotherapist and positive treatment outcomes reported positive attitudes. Lack of evidence, treatment experience and related knowledge, safety issues due to publications on adverse events and professional norms led to negative attitudes. Despite lacking evidence, positive treatment experiences, good interpersonal relation and parents feeling frustrated and despaired can overrule negative attitudes and directly influence the decision-making process and choosing for manual therapy treatment.